AGENDA
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2020 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING James Benjamin, Chair (SEE BELOW OF DETAILS) Steve Ruddock, Vice Chair Sara Polgar, Planning Commissioner Rick Hernandez, Planning Commissioner Brian Holt, Planning Commissioner
This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address the Planning Commission on any matter not listed on the Agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the Agenda and will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item. Those wishing to speak on an agenda item are asked to fill out a speaker card. Speaker(s) will be called forward at the appropriate time during the agenda item in consideration.
Please Note: Please Provide a Copy of Prepared Presentations to the Clerk
Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the Agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall and the Half Moon Bay Library where they are available for public inspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.) Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in this meeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
http://hmbcity.com/
MEETING WILL CONCLUDE BY 10:30 PM UNLESS OTHERWISE EXTENDED BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
1
SPECIAL TELECONFERENCE/REMOTE MEETING PROTOCOLS In accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No-29-20, this will be a teleconference meeting without a physical location to help stop the spread of COVID-19. This meeting will be conducted entirely by remote participation, in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order N-29-20 allowing for deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act.
This meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. Members of the public are welcome to login into the webinar as Attendees. During any public comment portions, attendees may use the “raise your hand” feature and will be called upon and unmuted when it is their turn to speak. The meeting will also be streamed on Channel 27, on pacificcoast.tv
Please click the link below:
Click Here to Join the Planning Commission Hearing
Webinar ID: 935 6185 1870
Passcode: 726501
Phone: +1-408-638-0968, 93561851870#, 0#, 726501#
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
DRAFT MINUTES
Revised Minutes November 10, 2020
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1.A PROJECT: AN APPLICATION FOR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ALLOWING THE DIVISION OF A SINGLE, PARTIALLY DEVELOPED LOT, MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 0.99 ACRE, INTO THREE LOTS.
CITY FILE #: PDP-20-014
LOCATION: 555 SEYMOUR STREET / APN: 064-342-350
OWNER/APPLICANT: COASTSIDE ESTATES, LLC.
PROJECT PLANNER: DOUG GARRISON, [email protected]; 650-712-5836
STAFF REPORT
2 ATTACHMENT 1 - Resolution Final
ATTACHMENT 2 - Tentative Parcel Map
ATTACHMENT 3 - Site Plan
ATTACHMENT4 - Final ISMND w_MMRP 11.20.20
ATTACHMENT 5 - MMRP
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
ADJOURNMENT
CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE (PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEMOS THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO PC AFTER PC AGENDA PACKET IS POSTED BUT PRIOR TO PC 11/24/2020 MEETING)
PC MEMO - PDP-20-014 - Nov 24 2020
3
November 10, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5
MINUTES CITY OF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2020 ALL REMOTE/VIRTUAL WEBINAR VIA ZOOM
Chair Benjamin called the hearing to order at 7:05 PM
PRESENT: Chair Benjamin, Commissioners Ruddock, Polgar, Holt and Hernandez ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Chair Benjamin led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve minutes as submitted with the addition of the meeting attendance sheet. October 27, 2020 M/S: Ruddock/Polgar Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (yes: Benjamin, Ruddock, Polgar, Holt and Hernandez)
PUBLIC COMMENT None ITEM 1.A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An application for a Coastal Development Permit to allow five investigative geotechnical borings to characterize subsurface units and gather information on the strength of soils at the closed Half Moon Bay landfill, owned and maintained by the County of San Mateo, on the coastal bluffs south of Poplar Street, Half Moon Bay.
FILE NO.: PDP-20-043 LOCATION: Half Moon Bay Closed Landfill/APN 064-410-030 and -040 APPLICANT/OWNER: County of San Mateo PROJECT PLANNERS: Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner (650) 750-2014
Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner, presented project additional studies since the previous meeting with focus on biological resources and the 2017 Seymour Water Course geotechnical study involving 4 borings.
Joseph Miller of SCF Engineers, project lead for San Mateo County responded to the Planning Commission clarifying questions.
4
November 10, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
Planning Commission Clarifying Questions Q. Boring locations would be setback from the edge of the cliff per standard safety setbacks; what are the setbacks and/or how are they determined? A. The geotechnical investigation will be conducted pursuant to a health and safety plan in which the proper bluff setbacks will be established. The setbacks will be approximately 20-25 feet, and specific boring locations will be identified in the field. Note that the locations need to be away from the bluff to be safe; but also outside of the landfill to ensure that they are in native soils in order to assess future risk. Q. Will the borings and equipment need to be in ESHA to get appropriate information? A. There will not be ESHA conflict, and a biologist will be on site. Q. Will the safety plan also address integrity of the bluff, over time? A. Yes. Q. How will construction timing be determined relative to weather and tide constraints? A. Will be able to work with tides, etc.
Chair Benjamin: Ex parte communication – added for the record that he put forth the following materials for the record: Western Snowy Plover nesting sites and the pinniped outhaul sites.
Public Comment None
Planning Commission Discussion The Commission finds that it is good to move this investigation work forward. Thanked the applicant (San Mateo County) and City staff for the improvements to the project since the previous meeting. There were key improvements associated with the memo put out this afternoon. They address the risk that even in the off-season there could still see be occurrences of marine mammals in the project vicinity. The LCP policies and citing the Marine Mammal Protection Act along with monitoring cover the concerns for this case.
Motion to approve as written in the Staff Report and Conditions. M/S: Holt/Hernandez Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (yes: Benjamin, Ruddock, Polgar, Holt and Hernandez)
ITEM 2.A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An Application for a Coastal Development permit, use permit and architectural review to allow the construction of a new two-story 9,235 square foot mixed use residential and commercial building and conversion of the existing commercial building to residential. FILE NO.: PDP-16-061 LOCATION: 795 Main Street / APN: 056-192-160 APPLICANT/OWNER: Moody Properties PROJECT PLANNERS: Scott Phillips, Associate Planner (650) 726-8299
5
November 10, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
Scott Phillips, Associate Planner, presented project site conditions, project, and the project review history.
Planning Commission Clarifying Questions Q. Where about the solar panels? A. Staff indicated the locations of the photo voltaic system. Q. What will the irrigation system include? A. The applicant clarified that there will be a drip system. Q. What will the tree species be, and how big they will be at maturity? A. Street trees are proposed to be mayten trees which are medium sized street trees; the proposed lemon tree will be replaced with a flowering plum. Q. For a street tree that size, would the size of the sidewalk planting box be? A. Applicant discussed that would do a larger size box.
Public Comment None
Planning Commission Discussion Project has been significantly improved. The Architectural Advisory Committee did good work on this project in supporting the applicant. Glad to see the applicant’s good faith effort in working with the City throughout this process. Expects to see irrigation to improve health of the trees. There are enough trees, in consideration of how large they will grow.
Public Works Director updates: Strike condition 11. SAM is not confirming capacity at this time and it is not an issue. Clarified that for Condition #22 about sewer connections, need to revise to ensure that the requirement is in accordance with the Muni Code, and the “Sewer Capacity Fee” paid to City prior to issuance of Building Permit. Street tree planting space will be determined per City Engineering standards.
Motion to approve as written in the staff report and conditions with the following changes: delete Condition 11; Condition 22 as written here – 11. EVIDENCE OF SEWER CONNECTION CAPACITY. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the permittee shall demonstrate issuance of a sewer permit from the Sewer Authority Mid-Coast. (Building)
6
November 10, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
22. SEWER CONNECTION FEE. The proposed development is subject to a sewer connection fee pursuant to Section 13.36.070 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits. (Engineering)
M/S: Polgar/Ruddock Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (yes: Benjamin, Ruddock, Polgar, Holt and Hernandez) DIRECTOR REPORT PC Forecast November 24, 2020 – Planning Commission Hearing - 555 Seymour Parcel Map December 8 – Carter Park John Doughty, Public Works Director responded to previous PC comments about trash receptacles at Poplar Beach parking lot area. Dumpsters were not being used properly. Next Spring looking into some of the smaller trash cans in and around the area. Noted that there is new signage in English/Spanish and also that a “Keep America Beautiful” grant for funded ash receptacles. Also having continued issues with bringing horses down the stairs.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Hernandez: The state of Poplar Beach is much better than it has been in recent years. If there were trash cans in key locations where people are walking, it would be helpful; e.g. concrete dual/source containers are best. Don’t need to bring back the compressors. Most people who park at Poplar can use the dumpsters; but other users might not access them and thus need something along the trail. Vice Chair Ruddock: With respect to the landfill, would like this to be brought to the City Council. Chair Benjamin: Has City staff had conversation with State Parks about Venice Beach needs? No updates at this time. Ruddock and Benjamin: Attended a SMCo presentation called, “Lessons learned from 2020 extreme heat and wildfires.”
ADJOURNMENT M/S: Holt/Hernandez Roll Call Vote: 5-0 (yes: Benjamin, Ruddock, Polgar, Holt and Hernandez) Meeting adjourned at 8:36 pm Respectfully Submitted: Approved:
______Bridget Jett, Planning Analyst James Benjamin, Chair
7
November 10, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5
Attendance Sheet on the following page*
Attendee Report Webinar ID 964 1243 9087 11/10/2020 Planning Commission Hearing Bridget Jett Brian Holt James Benjamin John Doughty Sara Polgar Denice Hutten Rick Hernandez PCT LIVE Steve Ruddock Winter King Joseph Miller Brittney Cozzolino Dan Pelikan Scott Phillips Mark Chow Janice Moody Robbie Moody wayne Michelle Dragony Andrew Storer Nick Duffort Melinda Joseph Miller Tiffany Deng Jo Chamberlain Jill Ekas
8 BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: November 24, 2020
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director Douglas Garrison, Senior Planner
TITLE: Coastal Development Permit, Tentative Parcel Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration, for File No. PDP-20-014, Coastside Estates LLC. 555 Seymour Street ______
RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and then approve PDP-20-014, an application for a Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map allowing the division of a single, partially developed lot, measuring approximately 0.99 acre, into three lots, at 555 Seymour Street, based on the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Summary of Project File Number PDP-20-014 Requested Permits/Approvals Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map Site Location 555 Seymour Street (APN: 064-342-350) Applicant/Property Owner Coastside Estates, LLC. Project Planner Douglas Garrison; (650) 712-5836; [email protected] Zoning District Single Family Residential (R-1-B-1) LCP Land Use Plan Designation Residential-Medium Density Water Connection One 5/8-inch line installed, two uninstalled 5/8-inch non- priority connections assigned to the property Sewer Connection Existing building connected to municipal sewer. Easement exists and private sewer system is available to serve the two new residential lots. Private and public sewer mains have adequate capacity to accommodate development. Street Improvements Existing sidewalk, curb and gutter. Some improvements will be required due to new driveway cuts and utility installation. Environmental Determination The City prepared an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluated potential adverse effects on the
9 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 2 of 9 November 24, 2020
environment related to the project. The scope of the review included the subdivision of the land and the future development of the two proposed lots consistent with the R- 1-B-1 zoning. All potentially significant impacts will be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level. Heritage Trees N/A Story Poles Not No Construction proposed? Required No Variance or Exception required? No Located in a largely undeveloped area? Right of Appeal Located in the Coastal Commission Appeals area
Figure 1. Site Location
10 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 3 of 9 November 24, 2020
Site and Surrounding Properties The subject property is located in the Arleta Park Subdivision, fronting Seymour Street and Highway 1. One existing residence is located on the lot. This building was originally used as a single-family dwelling, then converted to a church, and in 2019-20 was converted back to a residence. Properties to the west and north are developed with single family residences. The Naomi Patridge Trail and Highway 1 is to the east and the James Ford Dealership is located across the highway. The land on the south side of Seymour Street is an undeveloped area within the North Wavecrest Planned Development Area. The 80-acre parcel closest to the site is owned by the Peninsula Open Space Trust and is managed as open space and agricultural land. Uses are summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1. Surrounding Uses Use LUP / Zoning North Single Family dwellings and Residential-Medium Density / Single undeveloped residential lots Family Residential (R-1-B-1) South Agricultural lands/ Open Space Wavecrest PD / PUD East Naomi Patridge Trail/ Highway 1 N/A West Single Family Residential Medium Density Residential / Single Family Residential (R-1-B-1)
BACKGROUND / PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject property was originally platted in 1908 as lots 11 through 21, of Block 3, in the Third Addition to the Arleta Park Subdivision. The applicant originally proposed a series of lot mergers and lot line adjustments that would have reconfigured the 11 lots into three lots. After review of the chain of title and the historic State Subdivision Map Act requirements, the City determined that these 11 lots were legally one single 0.99-acre lot and not the 11 lots as originally mapped. Consequently, the applicant is now proposing to divide the single 0.99-acre lot into three lots through this parcel map. The existing residence at 555 Seymour Street will not be altered as part of the project. The entire property is zoned for single family residential development (R-1-B-1). No Zoning or Land Use Plan designation change is proposed. Plans for new residences have not been developed yet and are not part of this Tentative Parcel Map application. However, the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for this application included an evaluation of potential impacts associated with the future development of the two new lots. The applicant provided a conceptual site plan and additional data to facilitate this analysis (Attachment 3). It should be noted that the attached site plan is conceptual in nature and not part of the Tentative Parcel Map. It is provided to facilitate a complete evaluation of potential project impacts. Future development of the two new lots will be subject to separate Coastal Development Permits and architectural design review approval.
Permit Requirements A Tentative Parcel Map is required for subdivision of land into four or fewer parcels. Subdivision of land is considered “development” pursuant to the Coastal Act and Section 18.20.020 of the Zoning Code and requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit. After approval of this
11 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 4 of 9 November 24, 2020
Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant will be required to prepare a Final Parcel Map for recordation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Final Map will be required to substantially conform to the Tentative Parcel Map.
ANALYSIS The key issues for this project are conformance with the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan, conformance with the Zoning Code/LCP Implementation Plan,1 Subdivision Ordinance and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following is a summary of project consistency with State and City requirements. A more detailed consistency analysis is provided in the IS/MND and the Findings section (Exhibit A) of the attached Resolution.
Conformance with the General Plan The Half Moon Bay General Plan consists of five adopted elements: Noise, Safety, Parks and Recreation, Circulation and Housing. The proposed land subdivision is in conformance with General Plan goals and policies.
Noise. Due to the proximity to Highway 1, proposed Condition No. A-7 requires the preparation of a noise study, by a qualified acoustical sound engineer, to ensure that new residential buildings will be designed and constructed to comply with General Plan Policies. Building designs have not been prepared yet and are not part of this Tentative Parcel Map application. Consequently, a detailed analysis cannot be completed at this time. However, it is anticipated that conformance with these standards can be accomplished through routine design and construction techniques. The IS/MND evaluated potential noise impacts associated with construction activities and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Temporary increases in ambient noise levels during future construction would be temporary and of short duration.
Safety, Parks, Recreation, Circulation and Housing. The project could result in the construction of two new single-family dwellings and potentially a similar number of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Measure D Certificates have been issued for the conversion of the church to residential use and for development of the two new homes. Consequently, new development would be within the one-percent annual growth limit established by the City. Should future development include ADUs, additional Measure D allocations would be required. This would not cause a substantial increase in traffic or change in circulation patterns or otherwise affect public safety, or recreational resources.
The property is not listed in the Housing Element “Inventory of Sites Suitable for Residential Development.” The reason it was not included is unclear. However, the addition of new housing units here will help the City meet housing goals and is consistent with the policies and goals of the Housing Element.
Conformance with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP)
1 The Zoning Code is the LCP Implementation Plan.
12 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 5 of 9 November 24, 2020
The LUP includes goals and policies to guide development and protect coastal resources. The project will not impede coastal access, obstruct views of scenic vistas or adversely affect environmental, historic, paleontological or cultural resources. The subject property is designated as Residential-Medium Density on the LUP Land Use Map. Seymour Street is not a coastal access route. Future development of the two new lots has been evaluated in the IS/MND. Due to the location and scale of potential development, the project will not obstruct views of broad ocean expanses, hillsides or other designated visual resources. The two new lots would be within 200 yards of Highway 1. Future development on the new lots would be required to meet design standards for the view corridor along Highway 1 and would be subject to separate CDP and architectural design review approval. Potential impacts to a broad range of resources including historic and archaeological resources, agricultural lands and sensitive biological resources have been evaluated in the IS/MND and were determined to be less than significant due to project design, or avoidance and mitigation measures.
Lot Retirement Policies. The City’s certified LUP does not require “lot retirement” linked to the creation of new lots. However, the Coastal Commission has interpreted coastal regulations to require this. Consequently, other recently approved subdivisions undertook this voluntarily and purchased lots in PD areas and either donated them to local land trusts or recorded permanent deed restrictions that preclude future development. The recently adopted LUP update, that has not yet been certified by the Coastal Commission, requires lot retirement through policy (Policy 2.21). At the time this project was initiated, City policy was unclear and lot retirement was not considered a legally mandated requirement. Additionally, the original plan was to reduce the number of lots from 11 to 3, not increase the number of lots, further affecting the analysis of applicability for this case. With the adoption of the LUP update in October, some of this uncertainty has been clarified in that the City Council has confirmed their intent to require lot retirements with new subdivisions. Furthermore, the project site is located within the Coastal Commission appeals jurisdiction, and it is notable that the Coastal Commission has required lot retirements for subdivisions in Half Moon Bay brought to it via appeal. Staff is recommending that if the Planning Commission approves the 555 Seymour Tentative Parcel Map, that it include a condition requiring lot retirement on a one for one basis, consistent with updated LUP Policy, which would therefore require that two lots be retired. Alternately, the Commission could determine retirement has, for all intents and purposes, already occurred because the originally platted lots were essentially merged through having never been separately conveyed. The applicant is reviewing options for addressing this requirement and staff will provide an update at the Planning Commission’s November 24, 2020 meeting.
If a lot retirement requirement is agreed to, staff recommends adding the following condition to the Resolution:
LOT RETIREMENT. Prior to the issuance of residential building dwelling permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that two potentially developable lots within the city limits have either been purchased and deed restricted to extinguish development rights in perpetuity or the lots have been transferred to an open space trust or other appropriate land management entity as determined by the City.
13 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 6 of 9 November 24, 2020
Conformance with the Zoning Code Table 1-1, in the IS/MND (pg. 8) and associated text provides a detailed analysis of compliance with zoning standards such as lot size, setbacks, etc. Table 2, below, identifies key Zoning Code/LCP Implementation Plan topics and their applicability to the subject site.
Table 2. Key Zoning Code/LCP Implementation Plan Topics Topic Applicability/Explanation The site does not contain ESHA. The BRE and IS/MND evaluated potential impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area special status species, water quality and (ESHA) No ESHAs. No impacts are anticipated. The proposed lots are within 200 yards of Highway 1. Future development on these lots would be subject to CDP and architectural review at that time. Due to the location, development would not obstruct views of broad ocean expanses or the hills to Visual Resource Area Yes the east. Future development of the new parcels Public Access No would not affect coastal access. No known resources on site. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and 2 ensure that no Archaeological Resource Area No impacts will occur. Historic Resources No None on site. The proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement. Proposed building footprints meet lot coverage and setback standards. The existing residence does not meet the rear setback requirement. This has been determined to be a legal R-1-B-1 Residential Development nonconforming condition. No changes to the Standards No building are proposed.
Conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance The City Subdivision Ordinance requires findings that the Tentative Parcel Map be consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code. The Tentative Parcel Map facilitates the planned residential development of this site consistent with the LUP and Zoning designations. As required by the Subdivision Ordinance and local Fire District requirements, all lots will have direct access to a paved public street and appropriate services and facilities are available to serve existing and future development on the proposed parcels. Additionally, if
14 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 7 of 9 November 24, 2020 approved, the Tentative Parcel Map would serve to clean up inconsistencies in historic subdivision map and current legal requirements.
Infrastructure Stormwater. If the future homes were evaluated as individual projects the increase in impermeable surfaces would not trigger the more restrictive Section C-3 stormwater control measures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. However, because this is a Tentative Parcel Map, the more restrictive stormwater control standards will apply. These include onsite retention of a ten-year intensity, two-hour duration storm. Stormwater improvements were required when the existing residence was converted to a church in response to the increased runoff that would be attributable to the parking areas required to serve the church. Runoff from this area flows into an existing basin and culvert identified on the Tentative Parcel Map. Any overflow from the new retention facilities will potentially be directed into this basin and culvert. Notes on the Tentative Parcel Map indicate that the stormwater control plan will be prepared by Sigma Prime, a local licensed engineering firm. Final design cannot be completed until building plans are developed and impermeable surface areas are more clearly delineated. Proposed condition No. A.6 requires approval of the stormwater control plan prior to approval of new construction. Additionally, recordation of a drainage easement is required if the design requires water to flow across property boundaries to the basin and a stormwater drainage maintenance agreement, which will also have to be recorded prior to initiation of new development.
Sewer. The existing City sewer main terminates just west of the property in Seymour Street. The existing residence has been served by a lateral that connects to this main. A private sewer line has recently been extended from the Seymour sewer main within a north-south easement that crosses the western portion of 555 Seymour and then proceeds eastward along the rear property lines of lots fronting onto Magnolia and Seymour Streets. This sewer line will serve recently constructed and proposed residences on Magnolia Street. The existing residence at 555 Seymour and the proposed two new lots, 565 and 575 Seymour, will also connect to this line. The City Engineer has reviewed this design and determined that there is adequate capacity to serve existing and proposed development.
Water. The Coastside County Water District has reviewed the project. The existing residence is served by a 5/8-inch installed water connection. There are also two uninstalled nonpriority connections assigned to this property. Future development of the two new lots will require extending the water main eastward along Seymour Street. Potential construction related impacts have been evaluated in the IS/MND. Additionally, the water connection to the existing residence will be relocated to the new water main extension, to meet sewer and water main separation requirements. The developer will be required to install these improvements prior occupancy of new residences.
Environmental Review / California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental documents prepared for nearby properties in previous years note that raptors were observed roosting in the eucalyptus trees north of the subject property. Additionally, there
15 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 8 of 9 November 24, 2020 have been recorded sightings of California red legged frog (CRLF) relatively nearby in the Wavecrest area. Consequently, the City required the preparation of a Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) for this project. As required by City code, the BRE was circulated to outside resource agencies for review. No comments were received. The BRE concluded that the project area did not contain environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). Ephemeral roadside drainage ditches were observed on the south side of Seymour Street, along Magnolia Street and near Highway 1. The closest ditch is across Seymour and generally west of the site. It is separated from the site by the street and existing curb and gutter on both sides of the street. The BRE concluded that the habitat potential is low, and no impacts were anticipated due to the distance from development sites and the existing Seymour Street improvements. The potential for special status species to occur on the site is low. The property is vegetated primarily with non-native grasses that have been routinely mowed. The BRE noted that the site could provide foraging for raptors and, although unlikely, it could not be completely ruled out that small mammal burrows could provide temporary refugia for migrating CRLF. The highest potential for impacts would be during the construction phase. The BRE and IS/MND include mitigation and avoidance measures to ensure that no impacts will occur.
It should be noted that projects of similar scope are often exempt from CEQA review. For example, construction of a single-family home or in some cases up to three homes would be exempt. Small multifamily buildings, motels and other commercial buildings would also be exempt (Guidelines §15303). Small subdivisions of up to four lots located in “urbanized areas” are exempt. Under CEQA there is a specific definition of “urbanized area” based on population. Half Moon Bay does not fall within this definition (Guidelines §15315). Recent subdivisions in Half Moon Bay were determined to be exempt under the In-Fill Development Project exemption (Guidelines §15332). This includes the eight-lot Carnoustie Phase 4 subdivision. The Tentative Parcel Map met all of the requirements for the in-fill exemption except 15332(c). To qualify, it is necessary to determine that the site “… has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” The BRE found that the site had very low potential as habitat for special status species. However, the standard in the exemption is “no value.” Experts may disagree on the interpretation of the “no value” standard and, in fact, the applicant retained a biologist who submitted a letter that contained a broader interpretation. After reviewing all of the evidence, staff conservatively decided that although the potential for impacts was quite low, the preparation of an Initial Study was appropriate.
The IS/MND evaluated a broad range of potential impacts, including future construction of new residences on the two proposed new lots. For the most part, impacts were determined to be less than significant. The highest potential for impacts would be in the construction phase and the IS/MND includes mitigation measures to ensure that potential impacts to are reduced to a less than significant level.
In compliance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines §15073, the City has provided a twenty- day review period for the IS/MND. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) was posted by the San Mateo County Clerk’s Office on October 30, 2020. The IS/MND was posted on the City website on the same day. Additionally, a combined notice for this Planning
16 Planning Commission Report PDP-20-014 Page 9 of 9 November 24, 2020
Commission hearing and NOI was published in the Half Moon Bay Review on November 4, 2020 and notices were also mailed to residents and other property owners within 300 feet and a notice was posted on the site on that date.
Public Comments No comments have been received to date.
Conclusion Based on the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, the Zoning Code and the Subdivision Ordinance; provides adequate services and facilities for the existing and proposed parcels and conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff recommends adoption of the IS/MND and then approval of the project based on the recommended findings and conditions of approval contained in Exhibits A and B of the proposed Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution with Findings and Evidence, Exhibit A and Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 3. Conceptual Site Plan 4. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration with Biological Resource Evaluation and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION P-20-___ RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL PDP-20-014
Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for subdivision of a single parcel into three parcels in the R-1-B-2 Zoning District, 555 Seymour Street (APN: 064-342-350)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted requesting approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision of a single parcel into three parcels in the R-1-B-1 Zoning District at 555 Seymour Street (APN 064-342-350); and
WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the application have been followed as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on November 24, 2020, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony presented for consideration; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) together with the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq, hereinafter; “CEQA Guidelines"), the City prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2020 the City posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) with the San Mateo County Clerk and posted the IS/MND on the City website that same day, and on November 4, 2020 the City published a NOI / Notice of Public Hearing in the Half Moon Bay Review and also mailed the combined NOI / Notice of Public Hearing to neighboring property owners of the project and posted notices on the site; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND concluded that the Project would not result in any significant environmental effects on Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Minerals, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Wildfire; and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND concluded that significant environmental effects on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels by implementation of avoidance and mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND; and
18 WHEREAS, No comments were received on the IS/MND within the twenty-day comment period and any late comments along with responses to these comments, were presented to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the IS/MND together with any comments and the responses to those comments prior to taking action on the Project; and
WHEREAS, any changes made after publication of the IS/MND clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to the IS/MND, and recirculation of the IS/MND is not required; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Coastal Development Permit in accordance with the Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Land Use Plan, Municipal Code Title 18 and the Coastal Act; and
WHEREAS, documents and other material constituting the record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decision and its findings are based are located at the City of Half Moon Bay Community Development Department, located at 501 Main Street, Half Moon Bay; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made the required Findings for approval of the Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map, as set forth in Exhibit A and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B to this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission takes the following actions:
1. Finds that the IS/MND for the Project satisfies the requirements of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
2. Finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the Project as proposed and mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment.
3. Adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.
4. Adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures for the Project identified in the IS/MND; as modified in response to Planning Commission comments, to further reduce potential impact significance.
5. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project
6. Approves the Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made the required findings for approval of the project, set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution;
PDP-20-014 2 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 19
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the Findings in Exhibit A and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B, the Planning Commission approves the application (PDP-20-014).
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing held on November 24, 2020.
AYES, NOES, ABSENT, ABSTAIN,
APPROVED: ATTEST:
______James Benjamin, Chair Jill Ekas, Director- Community Development
PDP-20-014 3 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 20
EXHIBIT A FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE Planning Commission Resolution P-20-___ PDP-20-014
Coastal Development Permit – Findings for Approval
The required Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for this project may be approved or conditionally approved only after the approving authority has made the following findings per Municipal Code Section 18.20.070:
1. Local Coastal Program – The development as proposed or as modified by conditions, conforms to the Local Coastal Program.
Evidence: The project consists of the subdivision of a single parcel into three parcels. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the Zoning Code. In conformance with the Local Coastal Program, the proposed subdivision will not impact sensitive environmental resources, block scenic views, or inhibit coastal access. In conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance, the Parcel Map provides for appropriate services and facilities to serve development on the existing and proposed parcels. . Coastal Act 30240(b) and Policy 3-3 (b): Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
Compliance: A Biological Resource Evaluation and an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) have been prepared that that evaluated potential impacts to environmentally sensitive areas (ESHA). The site does not contain ESHA and it has been determined that the subdivision and future development will adversely affect nearby ESHA.
Coastal Act 30244: Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
Compliance: There are no known historic or archaeological resources on the site. The IS/MND conservatively includes mitigation measures that ensure that no resources will be adversely affected if there are any present.
2. Growth Management System – The development is consistent with the annual population limitation system established in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
PDP-20-014 4 Planning Commission 11/24/2020
21
Evidence: The property is designated for single family residential use on the Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Map. The land was originally platted as 11 lots in 1908. Due to changes to the State Map Act over time the 11 lots have been determined to be a single legal lot now. The addition of two additional lots is consistent with the Housing Element goal for this area and is consistent with the annual population limitation system. Three Measure D Certificates have been issued for the project.
3. Zoning Provisions – The development is consistent with the use limitations and property development standards of the base district as well as the other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Evidence: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the use regulations and the development standards of the R-1-B-1 Zoning District as documented in the staff report and the IS/MND.
4. Adequate Services – The proposed development will be provided with adequate services and infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.
Evidence: The proposed Tentative Parcel Map has been structured to ensure that access and appropriate facilities and services are available to the new parcels. Both lots will front directly onto Seymour Street and existing utilities serve this area. The property has one installed water connection and two uninstalled non-priority connections. Water, sewer and other utilities are available nearby and adequate capacity exists to accommodate the new lots.
5. California Coastal Act – Any development to be located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
Evidence: The proposed project is not located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea. Seymour Street does not provide direct access to coastal recreational areas and is not designated as a major coastal access road. Approval of the parcel map will not affect coastal access.
Tentative Parcel Map – Finding
1. Tentative Parcel Map – The Tentative Parcel Map is in conformity with the general plan and its elements, the local coastal plan, the zoning ordinance, the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and Title 17 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code as to design, drainage and utilities.
Evidence: As required by the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 17 of the Municipal Code), the
PDP-20-014 5 Planning Commission 11/24/2020
22 proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program and the Zoning Code. The Parcel Map allows for the continued use of the site for single family residential use consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Map designation of the site. The Tentative Parcel Map conforms to the minimum lot size, minimum lot width, and all other use and development regulations of the R-1-B-1 Zoning District. The project application includes a Coastal Development Permit in conformance with the requirements of Zoning Code Chapter 18.20. In conformance with the Local Coastal Program, the proposed subdivision will not impact sensitive environmental resources, block scenic views, or inhibit coastal access. In conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act, existing streets are available to serve the existing and proposed parcels. The Parcel Map provides for appropriate services and facilities to serve development on the existing and proposed parcels. Appropriate easements have been included in the project to ensure the continued availability and maintenance of existing services and facilities.
Environmental Review – Finding
Environmental review of the project was conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). All potential impacts were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures and standard City conditions. All procedural requirements concerning the filing of Notices and soliciting agency and public comments have been complied with.
Evidence: On October 30, 2020, the City posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) with the San Mateo County Clerk. On the same day the IS/MND was posted on the City website. On November 4, 2020, the City published the NOI / Notice of Planning Commission Hearing in the Half Moon Bay Review and mailed notices to neighboring properties and interested parties and posted a notice on the site. .
PDP-20-014 6 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 23
EXHIBIT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Commission Resolution P-20-___ PDP-20-014
A. The following Conditions apply to this project:
1. CONFORMANCE WITH THE TENTATIVE MAP. The Final Parcel Map shall substantially conform to the Tentative Parcel entitled “Tentative Parcel Map, 555 Seymour Street” prepared and signed by Bryan G. Taylor and stamped 8/23/2020, except for any revisions required by this permit. (Planning)
2. CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Planning)
3. SIDEWALK, MAINTANENCE AND LIABILITY. It shall be the duty of the Property Owner(s) whose property is adjacent to any portion of a public street or place to maintain any sidewalks along the project frontage in a safe and non-dangerous condition. Sidewalk maintenance shall include removal and replacement of concrete to eliminate tripping hazards; and pruning and trimming of trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscaping within the public right-of-way. The Property Owner has the primary and exclusive duty to fund and perform such maintenance and repair, whether or not the City has notified the property owner of the need for such maintenance or repairs or has performed similar maintenance or repairs in the past, pursuant to §12.18.020 and §12.18.030 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Engineering)
4. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/SERVICES. Electric, telecommunication, and cable and utility service to the property shall be through underground service connections only. No overhead utilities are allowed. (Engineering)
5. STREET/PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY CUTS FOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS. Street cuts for utility connections that are less than twenty (20) feet apart shall be repaired with a single patch. Asphalt repair and overlay shall be in accordance with the City Standard Details. Three or more cuts in the pavement for utility connections will require a 2-inch thick asphalt concrete overlay on the existing pavement across the property frontage. (Engineering)
6. STORMWATER. Prior to construction or transfer of lots, a stormwater plan shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. Onsite retention designed to accommodate a 10-year / 2-hour storm will be required for all lots in the subdivision. If the stormwater plan design includes runoff crossing property boundaries, an easement shall be recorded that clearly delineates this feature. A stormwater maintenance
24
agreement, subject to approval by the City Engineer, shall be prepared and recorded prior to transfer of any lots or the commencement of construction. (Engineering)
7. SOUND LEVEL SAFETY. The project shall comply with the City of Half Moon Bay General Plan Noise Element to ensure adequate attenuation of exterior sound levels, especially road noise from Highway 1 for the interior of the living space in the single-family home and a specified portion of the exterior open space. (Planning)
8. COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - REGULATIONS. The project shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Coastside County Water District. Water service shall not be in the same trench as other utilities. (Water District)
B. The following Conditions shall be fulfilled prior to approval and recordation of a Final Map:
1. SIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The subdivider shall submit a signed copy of the conditions of approval to the Planning Department. (Planning)
2. EASEMENTS. The subdivider shall provide easements on the Final Map for sewer lines, water/fire suppression facilities and utilities. This condition shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
3. FINAL MAP. The subdivider shall submit a Final Parcel Map in substantial conformance with the Tentative Parcel Map and Title 17 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
E. The following mitigation measures are incorporated into the conditions of approval and shall be complied with prior to and during construction:
1. BIO-1 The following general mitigation measures shall be implemented during the project: a. Prior to the start of the project, all construction crew members shall attend an environmental awareness training presented by a qualified biologist. A training brochure describing special-status species, project avoidance and avoidance and minimization measures, key contacts, and potential consequences of impacts to special-status species and potentially jurisdictional water features shall be distributed to the crew members during the training. b. Disturbance to vegetation should be kept to the minimum necessary to complete the project activities, provided there is no feasible alternative. To minimize impacts to vegetation, a qualified biologist shall work with the contractor to designate the work area and any staging areas as well as delineate areas that should be avoided with exclusionary fencing (i.e., high visibility orange
PDP-20-014 8 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 25
construction fencing or silt fence). Areas that shall be avoided include the potentially jurisdictional drainages. c. If any wildlife is encountered during project activities, said wildlife must be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and a biologist shall be able to relocate the wildlife outside of the project limits. All listed wildlife species shall be allowed to leave the work area of their own accord and without harassment. Animals shall not be picked up or moved in any way. d. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, trash/construction debris shall be removed from work areas. e. The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. Routes and boundaries shall be clearly demarcated, and these areas shall be outside of the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
2. BIO-2 The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles: a. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grubbing or grading) should occur during the dry season (June 1 to October 15) to facilitate avoidance of California red-legged frog. Regardless of the season, no construction shall occur within 24 hours following a significant rain event (greater than 1/4 inch in a 24-hour period). b. Following a significant rain event and a 24-hour drying-out period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog prior to the restart of any project activities. c. A qualified biologist shall mark for avoidance all burrows found within the project area using colored flags. If flagged burrows or burrow areas cannot be avoided by construction, then the biologist shall monitor all initial ground- disturbing activities where burrows or burrow areas occur. These activities include initial vegetation clearing/removal, grading, and/or excavation. During monitoring of initial ground-disturbing activities, the biological monitor shall have the authority to stop work activities upon the discovery of sensitive biological resources/species, and allow construction to proceed after the identification and implementation of steps required to avoid or minimize impacts to the sensitive species. d. To assist in excluding California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from the work area, an exclusion fence shall be installed around the entire work area prior to the commencement of construction activities. Exclusion fencing shall be silt fence-type fencing or equivalent and shall not include poly-mesh fencing or other similar fencing that could entrap or snag reptiles, amphibians, or other small animals. Exclusion fencing shall be installed with the fence stakes
PDP-20-014 9 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 26
placed on the inside of the fencing (closest to the project boundary) to prevent frogs or snakes from using the stakes to maneuver over the fence. The fencing shall be maintained until all work has been completed.
3. BIO-3 The following measure shall be implemented to minimize impacts to monarch butterfly: a. Tree trimming activities should be conducted outside of the over-wintering season for monarch butterfly (approximately mid-October to March). If substantial tree trimming is required during the over-wintering season, tree trimming shall not take place when temperatures are 55 degrees Fahrenheit and below (when monarch butterflies could be clustered in roost trees due to low temperatures). If tree trimming is required at or below 55 degrees Fahrenheit, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for monarch butterflies. If monarch butterflies are present, the project biologist shall require modifications to the project to avoid adverse impacts to monarch butterflies.
4. BIO-4 The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to wetlands and waters west of the project area: a. All exposed surfaces shall be wetted periodically to prevent significant dust. b. All stockpiled soil shall be covered during periods of rain. c. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet from the potentially jurisdictional drainages. The owner shall ensure that contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of work, the owner shall ensure that there is a plan to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. d. Any and all spoils (e.g., dirt, debris, construction-related materials) generated during project activities shall be placed where they cannot enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages. e. All exposed soils in the work area (resulting from project activities) shall be stabilized immediately following the completion of work to prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control BMPs, such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel or rock-lined drainages, water check bars, and broadcast straw, can be used. Straw wattles, if used, shall be made of biodegradable fabric (e.g., burlap) and free of monofilament netting. All exposed soil shall be protected from erosion with jute matting on slopes. At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages. f. Before completion of the project, all exposed or disturbed surfaces shall be permanently protected from erosion with reseeding and landscaping.
PDP-20-014 10 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 27
5. BIO-5 The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to nesting birds, as required by the MBTA: a. Tree trimming activities and/or vegetation removal activities (including shrubs and/or grasses) should be conducted outside of nesting bird season. However, if project activities are conducted during nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), preconstruction nest surveys shall be conducted in and near the project (within 500 feet for large raptors and 300 feet for all other birds) by a qualified biologist. If nesting is identified during the preconstruction survey, then a buffer shall be established of a size determined by the project biologist to be sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and/or the project shall be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct take of the identified nests, eggs, and/or young.
6. CUL-1 In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work within 50 feet of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist, deemed suitable by the City, can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. In the event that an archeological resource is discovered that meets the criteria to be considered an historical resource or unique archeological resource under CEQA, the archeologist shall prescribe additional measures. These measures may include, but are not limited to, testing, data recovery, and additional archeological monitoring. In the event that a resource is, or is suspected to be, Native American in origin, Native American monitoring shall also be required. The Owner, in consultation with the City, shall implement all measures prescribed by the qualified archaeologist. Following these measures will avoid adverse impacts to archaeological resources.
7. CUL-2 The project shall comply with the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding the discovery of human remains:
If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction demolition and/or grading activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following procedure shall be observed: a. Stop immediately and contact the County Coroner: 50 Tower Road San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 3120-5562 b. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC.
PDP-20-014 11 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 28
c. The NAHC would immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American. d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods.
8. GEO-1 In the unlikely event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the project Applicants shall comply with PRC Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244, which prohibit the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature from lands under the jurisdiction of the state or any county, city, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. To be consistent with these PRC Sections, in the event that paleontological resources are exposed during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under the provisions of CEQA, the paleontologist shall prescribe, and the project Applicants shall implement, additional measures such as testing or data recovery to avoid impacts to the resources.
9. GHG-1 To the extent feasible, construction workers living outside San Mateo County shall meet at designated areas and be transported (in carpools) to the project area.
10. GHG-2 Alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) should be used on at least 15% of construction vehicles/equipment, if feasible
11. GHG-3 To the extent feasible, off-road construction diesel engines shall meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines.
12. TRI-1 In the event that objects or artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources are encountered during the course of the project, all such activities shall temporarily cease on the project site until the potential tribal cultural resources are properly assessed and treated pursuant to PRC Section 21074 (a)(2).
F. Validity and Expiration of Permits
1. EFFECTIVE DATE. This site is located within the Coastal Appeal Zone. This permit shall take effect after expiration of the Coastal Commission appeal period, or if the permit is appealed to the Coastal Commission during the appeal period, it shall take effect after final Coastal Commission action. (Planning)
2. ACCURACY OF APPLICATION MATERIALS. The applicant shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and material submitted for this application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may be grounds for the revocation or modification of this permit and/or any other City approvals.
PDP-20-014 12 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 29
3. EXPIRATION. The Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map shall expire two years from the date of their approval if a final map has not been recorded during that time. The Planning Commission may approve up to three one-year extensions of this Coastal Development Permit and Parcel Map based on a written request and fee submitted to the Director prior to expiration of the Permit/Map.
4. HOLD HARMLESS. The permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against an and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement, any review by the California Coastal Commission conducted under the California Coastal Act Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq., or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions. The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City. (City Attorney).
OWNER’S/PERMITTEE’S CERTIFICATION: I have read and understand and hereby accept and agree to implement the foregoing conditions of approval of the Coastal Development Permit.
APPLICANT:
______(Signature) (Date)
PDP-20-014 13 Planning Commission 11/24/2020 30 31 32 PROJECT: 555 SEYMOUR STREET TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP - TWO PROPOSED RESIDENCES
OWNER:
CONNECT TO 10' WIDE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT PER CITY RESOLUTION NO. 109-82 DESIGN-BUILD SYSTEM COASTSIDE TO BE PREPARED BY SIGMA PRIME GEOSCIENCES ESTATES, LLC 4" LATERAL 575 SEYMOUR
4" LATERAL 565 SEYMOUR PROJ. ADDRESS: 555 SEYMOUR " " STREET, 2 8 1 1 63'-5 LANDSCAPE 64'-3 LANDSCAPE HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
PATIO CONTACT INFO: PATIO ADRIENNE SCHNELL
15 13'-11 16" 390 REDONDO BEACH ROAD,
CABRILLO HIGHWAY 1 HIGHWAY CABRILLO HALF MOON BAY, CA 2ND STORY 3 10'-2 4" 94019 2ND STORY LANDSCAPE 916.871.3821 5'-0"
PORCH 5'-0" 1 24'-1 4"
PORCH LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE
(N) PROPERTY LINE FENCE " 4 1
28'-0" SHEET TITLE: LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE 25'-0 07/20/2020 PROPOSED SITE (E) DRIVEWAY APPROACH (TO BE CUT BACK) (N) DRIVEWAY APPROACH
(N) PROPERTY LINE FENCE (N) PROPERTY LINE FENCE (E) 555 SEYMOUR PROPOSED PARCEL B PROPOSED PARCEL C PLAN TWO NEW CONNECT TO PG&E VIA SEYMOUR STREET CONNECT TO CCWD WATER VIA SEYMOUR STREET 565 SEYMOUR 575 SEYMOUR ON NEW PARCEL (LOTS 16-18) ON NEW PARCEL (LOTS 19-21) RESIDENCES- BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE FOOTPRINTS FOR IS/MND STUDY A3 SCALE:
AS INDICATED 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN - IS/MND STUDY 36"X24" SHEET FORMAT A3 SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
33
555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOVEMBER 2020
PREPARED FOR City of Half Moon Bay
PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants
34
35
555 SEYMOUR PARCEL MAP PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared for City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 Attn: Doug Garrison
Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 60 Stone Pine Road, Suite 100 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 (650) 440-4160 www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 60642
November 2020
36
37 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents
CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Project Description ...... 3 1.1 Introduction ...... 3 1.2 CEQA Statute and Guidelines ...... 3 1.3 Project Location ...... 4 1.4 Land Use and Zoning ...... 6 1.5 Proposed Project ...... 8 1.6 Requested Action and Required Permits ...... 12 Chapter 2. Environmental Checklist and Responses ...... 13 2.1 Aesthetics ...... 13 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 18 2.3 Air Quality ...... 20 2.4 Biological Resources ...... 24 2.5 Cultural Resources ...... 33 2.6 Energy ...... 36 2.7 Geology and Soils ...... 37 2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 42 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 44 2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 47 2.11 Land Use and Planning ...... 53 2.12 Mineral Resources ...... 54 2.13 Noise ...... 55 2.14 Population and Housing ...... 57 2.15 Public Services ...... 58 2.16 Recreation ...... 62 2.17 Traffic and Circulation ...... 63 2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 66 2.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 68 2.20 Wildfire ...... 73 2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 76 Chapter 3. Preparers of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration...... 78 3.1 Lead Agency...... 78 3.2 Project Applicant ...... 78 3.3 Environmental Consultants (CEQA) ...... 78
i 38 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents
Appendices
Appendix A. Biological and Wetlands/Waters Evaluations A1. Biological Resources Evaluation for 555 Seymour Street (September 2019) A2. Biological Resources Evaluation for 546 Magnolia Street (June 2019) A3. Addendum to the Biological Resources Evaluation for 564 Magnolia Street (January 30, 2020) A4. Special Status Plant Survey Results for the Magnolia Street Project and 555 Seymuor Street Project (March 25, 2020) Appendix B. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Figures
Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map...... 5 Figure 1-2. Project location map...... 7 Figure 1-3. Proposed parcels and building areas...... 10 Figure 2-1. West-facing view of the project parcel from the Naomi Patridge Trail with North Wavecrest in the background...... 15 Figure 2-2. North-facing view of the project parcel, with existing residence to the east and eucalyptus trees to the north, from the intersection of the Naomi Patridge Trail and Seymour Street...... 15 Figure 2-3. Northeast-facing view of from project site, showing the eucalyptus grove to the north and dwellings to the northeast...... 16 Figure 2-4. Southeast-facing view of the intersection of Highway 1 and Seymour Street from the project site, showing the car dealership and North Wavecrest...... 16
Tables
Table 1-1. Development Standards and Project Lot Characteristics for Properties Zoned R-1-B-1 (Single-Family Residential) ...... 8 Table 2-1. CCWD Water Supply and Demand Estimates for Multiple Dry Years ...... 72
ii 39 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Alliance Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMP best management practice BRE Biological Resources Evaluation C.3 Small project under San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Plan C/CAG City and County Association of Governments CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection California Water Boards State Water Resources Control Board CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCC California Coastal Commission CCR California Code of Regulations CCWD Coastside County Water District CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDP Coastal Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFPD Coastside Fire Protection District City City of Half Moon Bay CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent County County of San Mateo CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CUSD Cabrillo Unified School District DWR California Department of Water Resources EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan FAR floor area ratio GHG greenhouse gases gpcpd gallons per capita per day gpd gallons per day IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration kV kilovolt kWh kilowatt-hour LCLUP Local Coastal Land Use Plan LCP Local Coastal Program LID Low Impact Development MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
iii 40 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents
MGD million gallons per day MRZ Mineral Resource Zone NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission North Wavecrest North Wavecrest Development Area – 80-acre parcel NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System PCE Peninsula Clean Energy PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter, 10 microns or less
PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 microns or less POST Peninsula Open Space Trust PRC Public Resources Code QMT Pleistocene QYF Holocene R-1-B-1 Medium Density Single-Family Residential ROG reactive organic gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAM Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District SB Senate Bill SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Sheriff’s Department San Mateo County Sheriff’ Department SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Plan SRA State Responsibility Area SSC Species of Special Concern SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants Tp upper Miocene and Pliocene UBC Uniform Building Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wavecrest Western Wavecrest open space parcel WWD Wetlands and Waters Delineation
iv 41
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST 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. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation ☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation ☒ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems ☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire ☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT 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, 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, nothing further is required. Signature Date
Printed Name Douglas Garrison, Senior Planner
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST BACKGROUND PROPONENT NAME PHONE NUMBER 555 COASTSIDE ESTATES, LLC. 916 871 3821 PROPONENT ADDRESS
1 42
577 Rocky Way Woodside, Ca. 94062
AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST DATE SUBMITTED City of Half Moon Bay Community Development November 24, 2020 Department PROPOSAL NAME 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project
2 43 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
CHAPTER 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Introduction
Project Title: 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lead Agency: City of Half Moon Bay Community Development Department 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
City Staff Contact: Douglas Garrison, Senior Planner
Project Applicants: 555 Coastside Estates, LLC.
The subject of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the proposed Seymour Street Project (the project), which consists of the subdivision of one existing lot into three lots and construction of two new homes (at 565 and 575 Seymour Street) in Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. This IS/MND includes a description of the existing environmental setting of the project and the environmental effects that may result from construction and operation of the project.
1.2 CEQA Statute and Guidelines
According to CEQA Statute Section 21064.5:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
“Mitigated negative declaration” means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
According to State CEQA Guidelines Article 6. Negative Declaration Process:
15070. DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or
3 44 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
15071. CONTENTS
A negative declaration circulated for public review shall include: A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if any; The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent; A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; An attached copy of the initial study documenting reasons to support the finding; and Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.
1.3 Project Location Regional Setting
The project site includes a single lot on Seymour Street that would be subdivided into three lots in the Arleta Park neighborhood of the city of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. San Mateo County is situated along the central coast of California and encompasses approximately 554 square miles (including tidal waters) of the San Francisco Peninsula. The county’s western border is on the Pacific Ocean and the eastern border is on the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The county is bounded by the city and county of San Francisco to the north and by Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Counties to the south and southeast, respectively.
The Santa Cruz Mountain Range traverses San Mateo County in a north–south direction, effectively dividing the county into two distinct regions: the Coastside and the Bayside. The Coastside is characterized by coastal terraces transitioning into gently sloping foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Bayside is characterized by low-lying mudflats, marshes, artificial fill, and broad, flat alluvial plains. Farther west, this low-lying region transitions into the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, increasing in slope to 15 to 30% near its crest. The city is situated along the San Mateo County Coastside, approximately 25 miles south of San Francisco, and encompasses approximately 6.4 square miles of land. It is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Santa Cruz Mountains to the east, Montara Mountain and the city of Pacifica to the north, and unincorporated San Mateo County to the south. Figure 1-1, Project Vicinity Map, shows the project site location and regional vicinity.
4 45 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
Figure 1-1. Project vicinity map.
5 46 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
Local Setting
Seymour Street is located in the Arleta Park neighborhood on both the east and west sides of State Route 1 (Highway 1), and both segments have direct access to the highway. The project is located on the northwest corner of Seymour Street and Highway 1, approximately 75 feet west of Highway 1. The project area encompasses a total of 0.99 acre, which includes the existing parcel at 555 Seymour Street. The existing parcel has one single-family residence on the western half of the parcel. The remainder of the parcel is undeveloped and supports non-native grassland and ornamental vegetation. The project area boundaries are depicted in Figure 1-2, Project Location Map.
In the vicinity of the project site, the north side of Seymour Street and Magnolia Street directly north of Seymour Street are developed with one- and two-story single-family homes. There are single-family residences west of the project area on Seymour Street and north of the project area on Magnolia Street. The lots, on Magnolia Street, adjacent to the project area are currently under construction with two single- family dwellings. Open space areas and the Pacific Ocean exist south and west of Seymour Street. The south side of Seymour Street includes the North Wavecrest Planned Development Area (North Wavecrest), which is primarily undeveloped. The 80-acre North Wavecrest parcel nearest the project area is managed for open space and dry-farming hay production by the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). Highway 1, the Naomi Patridge Trail, residential developments, and an automobile dealership are located to the east of the project. POST also manages a Wavecrest parcel approximately 0.35 mile west of the project site for open space and birdwatching (Wavecrest).
Seymour Street is approximately 33 feet wide with 5-foot-wide sidewalks on the north side of the street. There is a small ditch located on the south side of Seymour Street. It begins approximately 250 feet west of Highway 1 and flows west, it does not appear to have a direct connection to the Pacific Ocean and terminates in the broad expanse of undeveloped Wavecrest. The Seymour Ditch is a larger, better known drainage system that originates east of Highway 1 and crosses near Wavecrest Road From there, it works its way west, then northward past Smith Field, across Wavecrest and turns westward toward the ocean. It discharges into the Pacific Ocean approximately 0.65 mile west of the project area in line with Seymour Street. To avoid confusion the smaller ditch adjacent to Seymour Street will be referred to as the Seymour Street drainage throughout this document. There is no direct connection between the Seymour Street Drainage and the Seymour Ditch, however, it may be possible for some stormwater from the Seymour Street Drainage to flow westerly and to enter the Seymour Ditch west of Seymour Street. Seymour Street has curb and gutter along both sides of the street along most of the 555 Seymour Street frontage. Stormwater from Seymour Street runs west to the end of Seymour Street, enters open space west of Seymour Street by overland flow and either percolates into the ground or enters Seymour Ditch.
1.4 Land Use and Zoning
The project site is located entirely within the city. Existing zoning for the project site is R-1-B-1 (Medium Density Single-Family Residential; minimum lot size 6,000 square feet, minimum average width 60 feet) with a maximum height limit of 28 feet. All three lots meet the requirements for standard R-1-B-1 lots. R-1-B-1 zoning requirements and project lot characteristics are included in Table 1.4-1, Development Standards and Project Lot Characteristics.
The project is approximately 0.65 mile from the Pacific Ocean and is in the California Coastal Zone. The California Coastal Zone was established by the California Coastal Act of 1976 and is under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act includes provisions that address the impact of development on public services, infrastructure, traffic, the environment, significant resources, and coastal access.
6 47 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
Figure 1-2. Project location map.
7 48 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
The entire city is in the coastal zone. The City of Half Moon Bay (City) adopted an amended Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) in 1993.1 In October of this year, the City adopted an updated LCLUP. The LCLUP requires final approval by the Coastal Commission. The City anticipates that this will occur within the next twelve months. The LCLUP together with the Zoning ordinance, zoning map, and Subdivision Ordinance constitute the Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the City’s coastal zone. A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) would be required for each component of the project. The City is the designated agency responsible for CDP approval of projects within the City limits.
Table 1-1. Development Standards and Project Lot Characteristics for Properties Zoned R-1-B-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Lot Characteristics Building Site Characteristics Requirements 555 Seymour1 565 Seymour2 575 Seymour2
Standard lot size 6,000 square feet in 20,678 square feet 12,411 square feet 10,066 square feet area and 60 feet in width 142.6 feet width 85.5 feet width 67.7 feet width Maximum lot coverage 50% for single story 10,343.5 square feet 4,343,9 square feet 3,519.6 square feet allowed 35% for multi-story Floor area ratio (FAR) 0.5:1 Would not exceed Maximum 0.5:1 Maximum 0.5:1 0.5:1 Required parking 2 garage spaces 2 existing garage Minimum 2 garage Minimum 2 garage spaces spaces spaces Minimum front setback 25 feet 25 feet Minimum 25 feet Minimum 25 feet Minimum rear setback 20 feet 16.3 feet Minimum 20 feet Minimum 20 feet Minimum side setback 5 feet 56.8 feet west Minimum 5 feet Minimum 5 feet west 28.5 feet east side Minimum street-facing- 15 feet n/a n/a Minimum 15 feet east side setback side Combined minimum 20% combined 85.3 feet combined 17.1 feet combined 13.5 feet combined side setbacks 59.8% Height Single story: 20 feet 17 feet existing Maximum 28 feet Maximum 28 feet Multi-story: 28 feet
1 Characteristics of existing dwelling on new lot dimensions 2 Requirement under Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Source: Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, 2020. Title 18 Zoning, Chapter 18.06.030 Residential Development Standards, Table B. R-1 Zoning District Development Standards. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/#!/HalfMoonBay18/HalfMoonBay1806.html#18.06.030. Accessed September 10, 2020.
1.5 Proposed Project With the project, the existing lot at 555 Seymour Street would be subdivided into three lots, which would be designated 555, 565, and 575 Seymour Street. The existing residence at 555 Seymour Street on 0.20 acre would not be altered as part of the project. Two new single-family residences at 565 and 575 Seymour Street would be constructed on the subdivided parcels totaling approximately 0.52 acre—0.29 acre and 0.23 acre, respectively. The project has one proponent for all three lots. The two single-family
1 City of Half Moon Bay. 1993. Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan, Chapters 1 to 10: Land Use Plan. Amended 1993. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/177/Chapter-1-to-10-Land-Use-Plan-PDF. Accessed January 14, 2020.
8 49 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description homes would be constructed by the same landowner and designed to comply with the City’s zoning requirements for R-1-B-1 lots.
555, 565, and 575 Seymour Street
There is an existing structure at 555 Seymour Street. This was originally a single-family dwelling. It was subsequently converted to a church and in 2019 the City approved conversion back to a dwelling. The 2019 conversion was determined to be exempt from CEQA and is considered part of the baseline condition in this IS/MND. This dwelling size would not be altered, but characteristics of lot coverage and setbacks would change due to the subdivision. Although the project Applicants have not yet submitted plans to the City, the proposed residences at 565 and 575 Seymour Street are expected to meet all requirements of the City’s zoning code as described below: • Height. The maximum allowable height in an R-1-B-1 zoning district is 20 feet for single-story buildings and 28 feet for multi-story buildings. The dwelling at 555 Seymour is a single-story dwelling and under 20 feet in height. This dwelling would not be altered as part of the project. Although plans have not been received, the future residences would be expected to remain under the maximum height requirement of 28 feet. • Setbacks. The setbacks for 555 Seymour Street would be 25 feet front, 16.3 feet back, 56.8 feet west side, and 28.5 feet east side. The existing 16.3-foot rear setback has been determined by the City to be a legal nonconforming condition. The proposed subdivision will not make this condition less conforming. The two proposed dwellings would meet all required setbacks (front setback of 25 feet, side setback of 5 feet [with minimum 20% of total width], street-facing side setback of 15 feet, and rear setback of 20 feet). The allowable building area defined by the setbacks is shown in Figure 1-3, below. However, assuming both residences would be multi- story, they would be required to maintain a lot coverage of 35% or less. Therefore, while the residences could be anywhere within the envelopes shown in Figure 1-3, they would be significantly smaller in size. • Lot Coverage. The dwelling at 555 Seymour Street would have a lot coverage of 23.1%, which is smaller than the maximum allowed 50% for a single-story building. The two proposed new lots could readily accommodate dwellings that would not exceed the required maximum lot coverage.. • Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor area ratios would not exceed 0.5:1. • Access and Parking. The existing driveway for 555 Seymour Street is directly connected to Seymour Street. The proposed driveways for 565 and 575 Seymour Street would also be directly connected to Seymour Street. The zoning code requires two garage parking spaces. The existing residence at 555 Seymour Street does includes two garage parking spaces. The proposed residences at 565 and 575 Seymour Street would have at least two garage spaces. The project may be required by the City to include construction of curbs and sidewalks. • Landscaping and Trees. The project site is south of a small eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) grove. Construction may require trimming of some eucalyptus tree branches but would not require removal of trees, including eucalyptus or other trees. The project would comply with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.2
2 California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2015. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model-Water-Efficient-Landscape- Ordinance. Accessed January 15, 2020.
9 50 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
Figure 1-3. Proposed parcels and building areas.
10 51 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
• Construction and Grading. For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that both dwellings would be constructed concurrently, based on information provided by the applicant. An individual single-family home would be expected to take approximately 1 year to construct. For each dwelling, construction would require a minimal amount of grading and the removal of approximately 20 cubic yards of soil and approximately 10 cubic yards of engineered fill would be imported to the site. For each dwelling, construction equipment would include, but is not limited to, a ½-ton truck, a backhoe, a cement truck, a 10-cubic-yard dump truck, a semi-truck flatbed, a site delivery truck, a water truck, and an air compressor, as well as power tools. Construction traffic would access the site from Highway 1 and Seymour Street. The City has not received plans for the proposed dwellings at 565 and 575 Seymour Street; however, at this time, it is assumed the plans would meet all requirements of the zoning regulations. Table 1.4-1, Development Standards and Project Lot Characteristics, displays the address, lot size, proposed square footage, and design requirements for each residential component.
Utilities
Utilities would be supplied to the project as follows: • Water: There is an existing 5/8-inch water service connection to 555 Seymour Street, and there are two 5/8-inch uninstalled water service connections. Installation of these connections would require extending a pipeline approximately 250 feet east from the existing water line in Seymour Street to serve the residences. For this analysis, it is assumed that sewer lines would access the residences from the north side of the properties, as discussed below, and there would be adequate separation between water and sewer lines to meet California health codes. • Sewer: An existing 8-inch sewer line runs west on Seymour Street beginning at a manhole located at approximately 535 Seymour Street. A sewer lateral at 555 Seymour currently connects to this sewer line. In addition, there is a 10-foot-wide sewer easement that runs in an east–west direction on the north side of the project. A new private sewer lateral has been constructed, independently, to serve new homes on Magnolia Street. It extends approximately 175 feet north, across the western portion of 555 Seymour, to join the existing north-south easement that separates the Magnolia and Seymour properties. In the future, it will be extended approximately 300 feet east to serve the project. A 4-inch lateral would be extended east and south to each of the proposed residences from the easement corridor. The extension of sewer service to new homes on Magnolia has been evaluated in the Magnolia Street Project Initial Study / Mitigated Declaration, adopted on April 28, 2020. • Storm Drainage: Stormwater in the project area percolates into the ground or may run off into Seymour Street. There is an existing stormwater basin and culvert at 555 Seymour Street. In addition, there is an existing stormwater system for some of the properties west of the project site. The project may be required to tie into this existing stormwater system. As required by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance,3 both residences would include a drainage plan to convey roof and driveway runoff to a detention basin designed to prevent runoff to neighboring properties. The City will require the detention basins for each residence to be designed to control stormwater flows from a 10-year storm event with a 2-hour duration.4 Overflow from a greater than 10-year, 2-hour storm event may be directed into
3 Department of Water Resources .2015. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model-Water-Efficient-Landscape- Ordinance. Accessed October 27, 2020. 4 A 10-year event is an event of such size that over a long period of time, the average time between events of equal or greater magnitude is 10 years.
11 52 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 1 Project Description
the existing basin and culvert at 555 Seymour Street, or allowed to flow onto Seymour Street. A stormwater maintenance agreement will be required to ensure the system works efficiently during the wet season. The parcel map and subsequent development will be treated as a C.3 regulated project. 5 As such, approval of a Stormwater Management Plan and Report will be required prior to development. Construction plans submitted for the project would be required to show implementation of at least one of the following Low Impact Development (LID) Measures: o Direct roof runoff into vegetated areas; o Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patio or covered areas into vegetated areas; o Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots to vegetated areas; o Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces; or o Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. • Electricity and Gas: Natural gas and electricity access has not been defined to date. All connections would be through underground service connections. Existing infrastructure exists in the Seymour Street right of way. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would need to approve the location and engineering details of electrical and gas extensions to supply the project.
1.6 Requested Action and Required Permits This IS/MND provides environmental information and analysis in compliance with CEQA, which is necessary for City decision makers to be able to adequately consider the effects of the project. The City, as the CEQA lead agency, has approval authority and responsibility for considering the environmental effects of the project as a whole. The CCC would serve as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. The City is responsible for authorizing and approving the subdivision and the City’s sewer easement and sewer and water extensions to serve the project. The IS/MND, in conjunction with other project documents as necessary, would be used for the following discretionary approvals: • Coastal Development Permit and associated Parcel Map; • Coastal Development Permits for construction of two dwellings; • Encroachment Permits for both dwellings by the City; and • Architectural Review for both dwellings by the City.
5 The San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program defines C.3 projects as “new development or redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site)” and require low impact development techniques, including appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures, to prevent increases in stormwater runoff. More information is available at https://planning.smcgov.org/stormwater- treatment-requirements.
12 53 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
CHAPTER 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND RESPONSES
2.1 Aesthetics
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Evaluation a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
A scenic vista generally provides focal views of objects, settings, or features of visual interest, or panoramic views of large geographic areas of scenic quality, from a fixed vantage point or linear corridor such as a roadway or trail. A significant impact would occur if a project introduced incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views of an existing scenic vista.
The project site is in a largely suburban neighborhood generally traversed by local residents. The project is adjacent to Highway 1 and the Naomi Patridge Trail, which carry both local and visitor traffic. Under the adopted 1993 LCP Visual Resources Element, there are no designated scenic vistas within 0.25 mile of the project site.6 Distinct visual resources in the community include the Pacific Ocean, 0.65 mile to the west, and the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, approximately 0.5 mile to the east. The LCP identifies the City’s eastern hillsides as a major attribute of the City’s visual setting and identifies the need to protect quality views as seen from Highway 1.7 Zoning Code Section 18.37.15.B establishes development standards for projects within 200 yards of Highway 1 or designated shoreline access routes to minimize visual impacts to coastal resources. New development on 565 and 575 Seymour would be
6 City of Half Moon Bay. 1993. Local Coastal Land Use Plan. Chapter 7, Visual Resources. Available at: https://www.half- moon-bay.ca.us/154/Local-Coastal-Program-Land-Use-Plan. Accessed September 10, 2020. 7 City of Half Moon Bay. 2014. Plan Half Moon Bay. Existing Conditions, Trends and Opportunities Assessment Report. Pp. 6-2 to 6-3. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/174/HMB-Existing-Conditions-Report-PDF. Accessed September 10, 2020.
13 54 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
within 200 yards of the highway. Seymour Street is not a designated shoreline access route. The primary goal is to protect broad ocean and hillside views from these routes. There are more than a dozen residences as well as patches of trees between the project site and the Pacific Ocean, and the bluff at the end of Seymour Street is approximately 50 feet high. Therefore, the project site does not have ocean views due to its distance from the ocean and existing development, trees, and topography. The project is on the west side of Highway 1 and will not affect hillside views from the highway. The North Wavecrest Planned Development Area approximately 35 feet south of the project site contributes to the rural agricultural character of the area. The Project is on the north side of Seymour Street and will not substantially block views of North Wavecrest from the highway. North Wavecrest is comprised of several distinct areas. The closest area is an 80-acre parcel managed as open space and dry farmed for hay. This parcel is closest to the project site but is not used by the public. South of that is an open space parcel (approximately 0.25-mile from the project) and Smith Field Little League Park (approximately 0.45-mile from the project). The westernmost area of North Wavecrest (approximately 0.40-mile from the project) contains dirt trails for hiking and birding, including a segment of the Coastal Trail.
The project site is located within the developed residential Arleta Park community. The project would subdivide one single-family residential parcel to create two new undeveloped single-family residential parcels and that would be developed in the future with new single-family houses. The residential subdivision would have no impact on scenic resources. The houses would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit, would be subject to Architectural Review and would be required to meet City visual resource protection standards, as addressed above in the discussion of zoning code standards. Additionally, the new homes would be reviewed pursuant to Design requirements as established in the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines;8 therefore, the new residences would be visually compatible with existing residential development and would not impact a scenic vista. No impact would occur.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a scenic highway?
Highway 1 is not a designated State Scenic Highway in the city; however, past guidance from the CCC has indicated an intent to protect Highway 1 and views from it as visual resources. As discussed in Section (a), the project is located within 200 yards of Highway 1, and would be visible from the highway, but would not interfere with views of the ocean, scenic hillsides or North Wavecrest. The project site supports non-native grassland interspersed with ornamental vegetation and is adjacent to a small existing eucalyptus grove. Some eucalyptus branches overhang the project area and may require trimming; however, the project would not remove any eucalyptus trees. The project site is in an established, developed neighborhood. In addition, an existing residence is located on the project site and the addition of two new homes would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (Figures 2-1 through 2-4). The design of the single-family residences in compliance with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines would be consistent with the design standards provided in Section 18.06.030 of the City Zoning Regulations for residential development and would be required to pass Architectural Review.9 Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
8 City of Half Moon Bay. 2015. Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines. Available at: https://www.half-moon- bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/158/Single-Family-Residential-Design-Guidelines-Adopted-June-2-2015-PDF. Accessed September 10, 2020. 9 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. Municipal Code. 18.06.030 Residential Development Standards. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/#!/HalfMoonBay18/HalfMoonBay1806.html#18.06.030. Accessed September 10, 2020.
14 55 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Figure 2-1. West-facing view of the project parcel from the Naomi Patridge Trail with North Wavecrest in the background.
Figure 2-2. North-facing view of the project parcel, with existing residence to the east and eucalyptus trees to the north, from the intersection of the Naomi Patridge Trail and Seymour Street.
15 56 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Figure 2-3. Northeast-facing view of from project site, showing the eucalyptus grove to the north and dwellings to the northeast.
Figure 2-4. Southeast-facing view of the intersection of Highway 1 and Seymour Street from the project site, showing the car dealership and North Wavecrest.
16 57 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project is located in a developed residential area in the Arleta Park neighborhood. Public views of the project site are visible from Highway 1 approximately 75 feet east, the Naomi Patridge Trail approximately 35 feet east, the North Wavecrest bird trails approximately 0.45 mile west, Smith Field approximately 0.4 mile southwest, and Johnston House approximately 0.55 mile southeast.
As discussed under Aesthetics (b), the project would be visible from the Naomi Patridge Trail, Highway 1, and portions of North Wavecrest. However, the project site is in an established developed neighborhood with an existing residence located on the project site, and the addition of two new homes would be consistent with the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood (see Figure 2-1 through 2-4). The project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Both homes would be required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit and would be subject to Architectural Design Review. The Architectural Review guidelines include requirements for site planning and design, view corridors, massing and scale, privacy, landscaping, and fencing design,10 and would ensure that the visual quality of the new residences would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Therefore, the project would not substantially degrade existing views or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The new single-family residences would include interior and exterior lighting that would create an additional source of illumination in the area. Vehicle headlights traveling to and from the residence would also illuminate the area. However, this increase would not be substantial because the project area is located in a suburban area that is already illuminated from streetlights and nearby residential uses at night, including from a streetlight in front of 555 Seymour Street and the existing residence at 555 Seymour Street, and the project’s lighting levels would be compatible with surrounding uses because the City requires that exterior lighting fixtures be downcast and shielded; therefore, lighting impacts would be less than significant.
10 City of Half Moon Bay. 2015. Single-Family residential Design Guidelines. Available at: https://www.half-moon- bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/158/Single-Family-Residential-Design-Guidelines-Adopted-June-2-2015-PDF. Accessed September 10, 2020.
17 58 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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, or a ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ land to non-forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Environmental Evaluation a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of State-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Protection, lists Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the general category of “Important Farmland” in California.
The project area comprises approximately 0.99-acre zoned for residential development and is surrounded by medium-density single-family homes in an urban/suburban location to the north, east, and west, and a North Wavecrest parcel used for dry hay farming to the south. The land is designated as Urban or Built Up Land and is not included in the Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance category.11 Therefore, the project would have no impact on the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
11 California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2019. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2018. CDOC Farmland Mapping Monitoring Program. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. Accessed September 10, 2020.
18 59 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. The Williamson Act of 1965 allows local governments to enter into agreements with local landowners with the purpose of trying to limit specific parcels of land to agricultural or other related open space use.12 The project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The closest land in agricultural production is located approximately 35 feet south of the project area in the North Wavecrest Planned Development area. North Wavecrest is primarily managed for open space. A portion of the property is managed for hay production using dry farming methods. The 35-foot buffer between the project site and agricultural activities (haying) in the North Wavecrest area is adequate to prevent conflict between the land uses. Therefore, no impact with respect to land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract would occur.
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
“Forest land” is defined as land that “can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” “Timberland” is defined as land “which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.” Timberland zoned for Timber Production is defined as land that “is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber.” There is no land zoned for timber production within the City limits, although there are several Christmas tree farms in San Mateo County sited in Planned Agriculture Districts. The closest Christmas tree farm to the project site is on Highway 92, approximately 6 miles northeast. The closest Timber Land Preserve District is approximately 4.2 miles east of the project site.13 The project site is south of a eucalyptus grove and is primarily vegetated with non-native grasses and ornamental species. The project site is zoned for single-family residential development and does not allow for management of forest or timberland resources; therefore, the project would have no impact on forest land or timberland.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
The project site is surrounded by urban uses and infrastructure, and as discussed in Agriculture (c), above, is not located on forest land. No impact related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land would occur.
12 CDOC. 2019. Williamson Act Program. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. Accessed September 10, 2020. 13 County of San Mateo. 2020. Planning and Building Map Viewer. Available at: https://gis.smcgov.org/Html5Viewer/Index.html?configBase=https://gis.smcgov.org/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/sites/publicpla nning/viewers/HTML52110/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default. Accessed September 10, 2020.
19 60 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
A significant impact may occur if a project involves other changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to another non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use. As described in response to Agriculture (b), the project site is primarily surrounded by urban uses and infrastructure. Neither the project site nor the surrounding parcels are utilized for agricultural uses or forest land. The closest land in agricultural production is located approximately 35 feet south of the project area in the North Wavecrest area. The 35-foot buffer between the project site and agricultural activities in North Wavecrest is adequate to prevent conflict between the land uses. The closest forest land is 0.3 mile from the project and would present no conflict. No impacts related to conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur.
2.3 Air Quality
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ applicable air quality plan? (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ concentrations? (d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Environmental Evaluation
The screening criteria established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has been relied upon to make the following significance determinations.
The project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD.14 The BAAQMD regulates air pollutant emissions, enforces regulations, administers permits governing stationary sources, inspects stationary sources, monitors air quality and meteorological conditions, and assists local governments in addressing climate change.
14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed September 10, 2020.
20 61 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
The 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan15 was adopted in April 2017 and updated the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The updated plan includes strategies to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and emissions of fine particulate matter Toxic Air Contaminants. The plan also provides a framework for long-term planning efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The BAAQMD has set project size screening levels for criteria air pollutants and precursors, and GHGs. If the project meets the screening criteria, the project would not: • exceed the threshold of significance for operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors, • exceed the annual 1,100 metric tons of carbon monoxide equivalents per year GHG threshold of significance, or • exceed the threshold of significance for construction-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors.16
The screening sizes for single-family residential projects are 325 dwelling units for operational criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides), 56 dwelling units for GHGs, and 114 dwelling units for construction-related reactive organic gases (ROG).
There are three other criteria that must be met along with the screening criteria in Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines: 1. A project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations if the following screening criteria is met: a. Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. b. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. c. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). 2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction; and 3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following: a. Demolition; b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously); c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development);
15 BAAQMD. 2017b. Clean Air Plan. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed September 10, 2020. 16 BAAQMD. 2017c. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. pp 3-1 – 3-2. Table 3-1. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 9, 2020.
21 62 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.17
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
A project could have a significant impact where project-related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or where project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains various control measures to reduce stationary and mobile sources of air pollutants. The project would generate temporary emissions from the use of construction vehicles and equipment. The Clean Air Plan addresses construction impacts and specifies construction emission control measures to be implemented. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established standards for off-road equipment. To reduce emissions, the project Applicants are required to ensure that all off-road vehicles and equipment comply with control number TR22 of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which requires all off-road engines to comply with Tier 3 or Tier 4 standards.18 Compliance with control number TR22 would reduce emissions of ozone precursors and emissions of particulate matter. As a result, the project would not conflict with or obstruct compliance with control number TR22 or any other control measure provided in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project would construct two new single-family residences. The project area of disturbance would be approximately 0.52 acre. The project size is well under the screening criteria established by the BAAQMD of 325 dwelling units for operational criteria pollutants oxides of nitrogen, 56 dwelling units for GHGs, and 114 dwelling units for construction-related ROGs. Both single-family residences would be constructed simultaneously. The project meets all other criteria. Standard conditions of approval for all CDPs in the City include all air quality best management practices and dust control measures required by the BAAQMD, which would reduce construction impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Project would comply with all measures required by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines19. These measures shall be included in the construction contract and plans and will be the responsibility of the construction contractor. They include the following: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
17 BAAQMD. 2017d. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. pp 3-1–3-5. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning- and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 9, 2020. 18 The EPA and CARB established emission standards for new engines found in off-road equipment. There are four tiers of emission standards, which become increasingly more stringent the higher the tier. Tier 3 and 4 emission standards are met through advanced engine design with no or minimal use of exhaust gas after combustion 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed October 7, 2020.
22 63 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; and • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
The small size of the project and compliance with BAAQMD requirements will result in a less than significant impact. b. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
The 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend assessment of risks and hazards on sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project. Sensitive receptors within this radius include numerous residences in the Arleta Park neighborhood and the southern portion of the city, as well as users of the Naomi Patridge Trail located approximately 35 feet east of the project area. Construction of the project would generate emissions that could expose these sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
However, as discussed under Air Quality (a), the project falls under the size-screening levels for criteria air pollutants. The screening level for operational emissions is 325 dwelling units, and the screening criteria for construction emissions is 114 dwelling units. The project would construct two new residences; therefore, the project would produce construction emissions that would not exceed the BAAQMD’s recommended localized standards of significance for oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) during the construction phase.
Sensitive receptors within 0.25 mile of the project include residences. Nearby residential receptors could be exposed to localized pollutants from construction of the project. Given the relatively small size of the project and the temporary nature of construction, the project would not generate substantial levels of air emissions. Sensitive receptors within 0.35 mile of the project would not be adversely affected based on implementation of standard City conditions of approval, requiring implementation of BAAQMD air quality best management practices. Since the project size is well under the BAAQMD screening criteria, potential construction impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Localized air pollution impacts from incompatible land uses can occur when polluting sources (e.g., heavily trafficked roadway, warehousing facilities, or industrial or commercial facilities) are located near a land use with sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals, or homes). The project would be a compatible land use as it would add two new residences to an existing residential area and would not result in polluting sources. Impacts would be less than significant.
23 64 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The EPA has identified air pollutants that endanger public health and the environment, are widespread throughout the United States, and come from a variety of sources. These pollutants are called “criteria” air pollutants. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare standards. The EPA has established NAAQS for the following six criteria pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. The CARB has set California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for the same six pollutants, as well as four additional pollutants: sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is designated non-attainment for ozone, coarse particulate matter, and fine particulate matter with respect to CAAQS, and ozone and fine particulate matter with respect to NAAQS. The BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions. The project size falls beneath the screening size threshold of 325 dwelling units for operational criteria pollutants; therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and this impact would be less than significant.20 d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Odors are usually associated with industrial projects involving the use of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The project would introduce residential uses in a residential area. The project would not include any land uses typically associated with unpleasant odors and local nuisances (e.g., rendering facilities, dry cleaners). No impact would occur.
2.4 Biological Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ through habitat modifications, on any species identified 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 or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 9, 2020.
24 65 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (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? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Four environmental documents have been completed for this and neighboring projects. (Appendix A). The following documents were used to inform this analysis: • Appendix A1. Biological Resources Evaluation (BRE) for 555 Seymour Street Project;21 • Appendix A2. BRE for 564 Magnolia Street Project;22 • Appendix A3. Addendum to BRE for 564 Magnolia Street Project;23 and • Appendix A4. Fragrant Fritillary Survey completed for 564 and 574 Magnolia Street and 555 Seymour Street.24 a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
A significant impact would occur if a project were to remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in regional or local plans, policies, or regulations, or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
21. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2019. Biological Resource Evaluation for the 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. September. 22 SWCA. 2019. Biological Resource Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. June. 23 SWCA. 2020. Addendum to the Biological Resource Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. January. 24 SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2020. Technical Memorandum: Special Status Plant Survey Results for the Magnolia Street Project and 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. March.
25 66 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
The project is located on a marine terrace approximately 70 to 90 feet above mean sea level, approximately 0.6 mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The project site is relatively flat and drains in a general southwesterly direction. The project includes subdivision of one single-family residential lot into three residential lots and the development of two new single-family residences. The site includes an existing residence at 555 Seymour Street and supports non-native grasses and ornamental vegetation on the two new residential parcels (565 and 575 Seymour Street). There is a small eucalyptus grove on adjacent properties to the north of the project area. Although no eucalyptus trees are present on the project site, some branches overhanging the project site may be removed to meet minimum safety standards. However, new development would be required, by zoning, to maintain a minimum 20-foot setback from the rear property lines and proposed building footprints maintain setbacks in excess of 60 feet. Consequently, no substantial adverse effects to trees or roots are expected. Additionally, Mitigation Numbers BIO-3 and BIO-5 require preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and monarch butterflies.
The habitat within and surrounding the work areas consists of asphalted roadways, a residential community, and an undeveloped eucalyptus grove to the north and North Wavecrest open space and agricultural land to the south. The dominant species occurring in the work area is non-native annual grasses and herbs, including slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), cut- leafed geranium (Geranium dissectum), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). The eucalyptus grove is located immediately north of the project area; however, some eucalyptus tree branches were observed overhanging the north edge of the project area.
A desktop review identified 47 special-status plant species and 12 special-status wildlife species within a 5-mile search surrounding the survey area shown in Figure 1-2, Project Location Map (see Appendix A1 for details of the desktop review). Of these, one plant and three wildlife species were determined to have some potential to occur within or near the project site. Potential for special-status plant or wildlife species was observed within the work areas during the surveys that were conducted on June 10 (see Appendix A2), August 15, and August 20, 2019 (see Appendix A1), and January 22, 2020 (see Appendix A3). No USFWS-designated critical habitat is located within the project area.
FRAGRANT FRITILLARY
One California Native Plant Society (CNPS)-listed plant species, fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea; California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1B.2), was determined to have potential to occur in the survey area. A rare plant field survey was conducted within the appropriate blooming period for this species (see Appendix A4). The species was not observed in the project area during the survey; therefore, the project would not impact fragrant fritillary and no impacts to special-status plants would occur.
CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is federally threatened and a CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC) that occurs in various habitats during its life cycle. Breeding areas include aquatic habitats, such as lagoons, streams, and natural and human-made ponds. The species prefers aquatic habitats with little or no flow, the presence of surface water to at least early June, surface water depths to at least 2.3 feet, and the presence of emergent vegetation (e.g., cattails and bulrush [Typha spp.]). During periods of wet weather, some individuals may make overland dispersals through adjacent upland habitats of distances up to 1 mile. Upland habitats, including small mammal burrows and woody debris, can also be used as refuge during the summer if water is scarce or unavailable. California red-legged frogs typically travel between sites and are unaffected by topography and vegetation types during migration. Dispersal habitat makes it possible for California red-legged frogs to locate new breeding and non- breeding sites and is crucial for conservation of the species.
26 67 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Ten California red-legged frog occurrences have been recorded within 5 miles of the project site between 1999 and 2016. The nearest California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) record indicates an adult California red-legged frog was observed approximately 984 feet southwest of the project site on the North Wavecrest open space parcel. The Magnolia Ditch on the south side of Magnolia Street, Seymour Ditch, and adjacent eucalyptus grove and grassland areas, may provide suitable foraging or dispersal habitat for this species. Based on the abundance of known occurrences within 5 miles of the project boundary and the presence of suitable non-breeding habitat within the vicinity of the project site, there is potential for California red-legged frog to occur in the project site. However, the developed and disturbed nature within the project area diminishes the habitat quality for this species; therefore, it was determined that there is low potential for California red-legged frog to occur within the project area. Should construction activities proceed while frogs are present, injury or mortality of individual California red-legged frogs may occur. Therefore, construction-related impacts on California red-legged frogs are potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE
The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) is federally and state endangered and a CDFW fully protected species. Its historical range is entirely within San Mateo County. The two main components of San Francisco garter snake habitat are: (1) wetlands supporting its prey species (e.g., California red-legged frog and Pacific chorus frog [Pseudacris regilla]); and (2) surrounding uplands that support small mammal burrows used by the snakes for escape cover. San Francisco garter snakes inhabit various aquatic habitats, including reservoirs, freshwater marshes, creeks, drainage ditches, ponds, and lakes. Less ideal habitats can also be used by San Francisco garter snake, such as ditches and other waterways, or floating algal or rush mats. Suitable breeding habitat includes shallow marshlands with an abundance of emergent vegetation. Grasslands are also an important upland habitat for this species, as they provide areas for thermoregulation and cover. Prey items for this species include California red- legged frog, Pacific chorus frog, and earthworms. Small mammal burrows are used by San Francisco garter snake during hibernation. During the warm days of summer, most activity occurs during the morning and afternoon. Preferred nocturnal retreats are thought to be holes, especially mammal burrows, crevices, and surface objects.
Freshwater emergent wetlands and ponds associated with San Francisco garter snake habitat are absent in the project area, although the drainage and swale features (primarily Seymour and Magnolia Ditches) in the vicinity of the project area may provide marginal foraging or dispersal habitat for this species. Although some burrows were observed in the non-native grassland and landscaped areas on the project site, the overall habitat quality of the project area is marginal for this species which typically has close ties to water. Therefore, San Francisco garter snake is unlikely to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable foraging habitat.
San Francisco garter snake occurrences have been recorded within 5 miles of the project area. The nearest CNDDB records indicate two San Francisco garter snake adults were captured during a trap study (1988) at a terminal lagoon at the mouth of Pilarcitos Creek, approximately 1.4 miles to the north. The existing drainages may provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for the San Francisco garter snake. However, due to the lack of aquatic habitat that supports breeding populations of their primary prey and lack of suitable foraging habitat within the project area, it was determined that there is low potential for the San Francisco garter snake to occur within the project area. However, should construction activities proceed while snakes are present, injury or mortality of individual San Francisco garter snakes may occur. Therefore, construction-related impacts on San Francisco garter snakes are potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
27 68 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
MONARCH BUTTERFLY
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a federal candidate for listing. Coastal California offers hundreds of overwintering sites, from Mendocino County to Baja California, Mexico. The majority of overwintering sites are found at low elevation levels (approximately 60 to 90 meters); on south-, southwest-, or west-facing slopes; or in shallow canyons or gullies. Monarchs require very specific microclimatic conditions, including protection from wind and cold temperatures, which are often found within sites that consist of a roost of blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), or Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) trees. In addition, habitats must have a source of milkweed and nectar plants as a food source. Monarchs are known to return to these overwintering sites annually and begin arriving from September through the first half of October to form fall aggregations. By mid-November stable aggregations are formed that persist through January to February. Monarch butterflies breed at the overwintering site from February to March.
Historical CNDDB records (last record in 1998) indicate monarchs were observed within 0.5 mile of the project site. Monarch butterfly occurrences have also been recorded near the western end of Magnolia Street in a eucalyptus grove within 0.2 mile of the project site. Information in the CNDDB suggests that monarchs ceased using the latter site after an arson fire in 1992 (see Appendix A1). There is potentially suitable habitat within the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the project area (including the eucalyptus branches that overhang the northeast portion of the property). However, there is low potential for monarchs to overwinter in the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the project area due to the lack of tree roosts that provide protection from the wind and other elements. However, should tree-limbing activities proceed while butterflies are present, injury or mortality of individual monarch butterflies may occur. Therefore, construction-related impacts on monarch butterflies are potentially significant, but implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the local or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The BRE completed for the project area identified one vegetation community on the project site—Non- Native Grassland (see Appendix A1). This is not a sensitive natural community. In addition, the BRE identified Eucalyptus Forest community adjacent to the northern border of the project site. Eucalyptus Forest is also not a sensitive natural community.
Eucalyptus Forest consists of dense stands of non-native, invasive eucalyptus trees, and are usually devoid of an understory except for a few hardy grasses and herbs. Stands generally range from 98 to 180 feet high and are frequently found in cooler coastal areas and along stream courses.
Non-native grassland may include a composition of exotic and native grasses in association with native annual forbs (wildflowers). Germination occurs with the onset of late fall rains, with growth, flowering, and seed set occurring from winter through spring. With a few exceptions, the plants are dead through the summer to fall dry season, persisting only as seeds.25 Common elements include slender wild oat, ripgut brome, Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), cut-leafed geranium, bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), and California blackberry.
25 Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.
28 69 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities exist on the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The BRE for 555 Seymour Street did not identify any potentially jurisdictional drainages on the project site (Appendix A1). The BRE did identify three drainages in the vicinity of the project site (Seymour Street Drainage, Seymour Ditch, Magnolia Ditch, and a drainage swale to the east adjacent to Highway 1) but concluded that these drainages would not be directly impacted by the project.
Excavation for some utilities for 565 and 575 Seymour Street would likely occur in Seymour Street, which would require trenching and repaving in Seymour Street. Stormwater runoff from utilities trenching and construction activities could impact water quality in Seymour Street Drainage along the western section of Seymour Street approximately 200 feet west of the project area where the curb along the southern side of Seymour Street ends. However, it is unlikely that stormwater runoff from trenching and construction activities would impact Seymour Street drainage since there is a concrete curb and gutter opposite the project that extends approximately 200 feet west along the south side of Seymour Street. Stormwater from Seymour Street enters open space west of Seymour Street by overland flow and either percolates into the groundwater or may enter Seymour Ditch, however, the majority of the flow in Seymour Ditch is generated in the hills east of the project area. Additionally, all construction activities would be required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWSPPP), which would prevent sediment- laden runoff and/or pollutants from entering Seymour Ditch. Therefore, impacts to the Seymour Ditch would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would further reduce these less-than-significant impacts.
d. Would the project 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?
The project is located in an established residential neighborhood and does not contain an established migratory wildlife corridor. The project area is surrounded by residential and urban development to the north and agricultural uses to the south and does not provide a linkage between larger habitat areas. Seymour Ditch is an intermittent drainage that collects stormwater runoff from Seymour Street west of Highway 1 and conveys it to the Pacific Ocean approximately 0.65 mile west of the project site. This intermittent drainage only conveys stormwater during rain events; therefore, its habitat value is low, and this feature does not provide suitable fish or aquatic wildlife dispersal habitat within the project area.
Although construction activities may temporarily deter wildlife from passing through the project area, due to noise and other disturbances, these impacts would only occur for a short period of time and would not lead to any permanent changes in wildlife migration. The area surrounding the project site contains other open space areas including North Wavecrest (approximately 35 feet south of the project site) and Pilarcitos Creek (approximately 0.8 mile north of the project site), which likely provide alternate higher- quality pathways for wildlife migration to persist during construction activities. As a result, construction impacts to migration and wildlife corridors would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
The project site contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 and 3513. Avian species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code observed in the project area during
29 70 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
the field surveys include, but are not limited to, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Anna’s humming bird (Calypte anna), house finch (Carpodacus cassinii), marsh wren, (Cistothorus palustris), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (see Appendices A1, A2, and A3). An inactive red-tailed hawk nest was also observed in a eucalyptus tree north of the project site during the surveys.
The eucalyptus grove north of the project area has potential to support nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the ornamental shrubs that occur along the south side of the project area have potential to support nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. The project has the potential to impact potential eggs or young of avian species covered under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. While potential nesting sites for migratory birds could be removed via the removal of the eucalyptus tree branches that overhang the property, removal of the ornamental shrubs on the property, and/or via removal of vegetative ground cover on the project site, hundreds of acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat are present near the project and would remain undisturbed by project activities. The project area is situated between the coastal hills (approximately 0.38 mile east and southeast of the project site) and the Wavecrest open space areas (0.35 mile west). If work occurs during bird nesting season, implementation of MM-BIO-5 would ensure that potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The project would have a significant impact if it would conflict with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance under Municipal Code Chapter 7.40, of the City’s Coastal Resource Conservation Standards under Municipal Code Chapter 18.38.26,27 The project may result in trimming of eucalyptus tree branches . No removal of blue gum eucalyptus trees is proposed. Under the Heritage Tree Ordinance, a Heritage Tree is defined as “A tree located on public or private property, exclusive of eucalyptus, with a trunk diameter of twelve inches or more, or a circumference of at least thirty-eight inches measured at forty-eight inches above ground level.” Therefore, eucalyptus trees are not covered under the Heritage Tree Ordinance. No impact would occur.
The Coastal Resource Conservation Standards require any proposed project within 100 feet of a “sensitive habitat area” to prepare a biological report. Sensitive habitat is defined as sand dunes, marine habitats, sea cliffs, riparian areas, wetlands, rocky intertidal zones, coastal scrub, and habitats supporting rare and endangered species defined by the California State Fish and Game Commission. The project site is not mapped as a sensitive habitat area on the City’s Habitat Areas and Water Resources Overlay in the Half Moon Bay LCP. The eucalyptus grove is not a sensitive habitat. In the BRE, the Seymour Ditch south of the project site is described as an ephemeral drainage ditch that is not likely to provide habitat for plant or animal species (see Appendix A1). The site has very low potential to support sensitive species, although sensitive species could occur. Due to previous observations of raptors and other concerns a BRE was prepared for 555 Seymour Street specifying mitigation measures to protect potential sensitive species, and a rare plant survey covering 564 and 574 Magnolia Street and 555 Seymour Street was prepared and discovered no rare plant species for the project. Therefore, the project complies with Chapter 18.38 and potential impacts would be less than significant.
26 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 7.40. Heritage Trees. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/#!/HalfMoonBay07/HalfMoonBay0740.html. Accessed January 21, 2020. 27 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 18.38. Coastal Resource Conservation Standards. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/html/HalfMoonBay18/HalfMoonBay1838.html#18.38. Accessed February 18, 2020.
30 71 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans that apply to the project. No impact would occur
Mitigation Measures
The project shall comply with all relevant measures identified in the BREs, including:
BIO-1 The following general mitigation measures shall be implemented during the project: a. Prior to the start of the project, all construction crew members shall attend an environmental awareness training presented by a qualified biologist. A training brochure describing special-status species, project avoidance and avoidance and minimization measures, key contacts, and potential consequences of impacts to special-status species and potentially jurisdictional water features shall be distributed to the crew members during the training. b. Disturbance to vegetation should be kept to the minimum necessary to complete the project activities, provided there is no feasible alternative. To minimize impacts to vegetation, a qualified biologist shall work with the contractor to designate the work area and any staging areas as well as delineate areas that should be avoided with exclusionary fencing (i.e., high visibility orange construction fencing or silt fence). Areas that shall be avoided include the potentially jurisdictional drainages. c. If any wildlife is encountered during project activities, said wildlife must be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and a biologist shall be able to relocate the wildlife outside of the project limits. All listed wildlife species shall be allowed to leave the work area of their own accord and without harassment. Animals shall not be picked up or moved in any way. d. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, trash/construction debris shall be removed from work areas. e. The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. Routes and boundaries shall be clearly demarcated, and these areas shall be outside of the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
BIO-2 The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles: a. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grubbing or grading) should occur during the dry season (June 1 to October 15) to facilitate avoidance of California red-legged frog. Regardless of the season, no construction shall occur within 24 hours following a significant rain event (greater than 1/4 inch in a 24-hour period). b. Following a significant rain event and a 24-hour drying-out period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog prior to the restart of any project activities.
31 72 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
c. A qualified biologist shall mark for avoidance all burrows found within the project area using colored flags. If flagged burrows or burrow areas cannot be avoided by construction, then the biologist shall monitor all initial ground- disturbing activities where burrows or burrow areas occur. These activities include initial vegetation clearing/removal, grading, and/or excavation. During monitoring of initial ground-disturbing activities, the biological monitor shall have the authority to stop work activities upon the discovery of sensitive biological resources/species, and allow construction to proceed after the identification and implementation of steps required to avoid or minimize impacts to the sensitive species. d. To assist in excluding California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from the work area, an exclusion fence shall be installed around the entire work area prior to the commencement of construction activities. Exclusion fencing shall be silt fence-type fencing or equivalent and shall not include poly- mesh fencing or other similar fencing that could entrap or snag reptiles, amphibians, or other small animals. Exclusion fencing shall be installed with the fence stakes placed on the inside of the fencing (closest to the project boundary) to prevent frogs or snakes from using the stakes to maneuver over the fence. The fencing shall be maintained until all work has been completed.
BIO-3 The following measure shall be implemented to minimize impacts to monarch butterfly: a. Tree trimming activities should be conducted outside of the over-wintering season for monarch butterfly (approximately mid-October to March). If substantial tree trimming is required during the over-wintering season, trimming shall not take place when temperatures are 55 degrees Fahrenheit and below (when monarch butterflies could be clustered in roost trees due to low temperatures). If tree trimming is required at or below 55 degrees Fahrenheit, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for monarch butterflies. The monarch butterflies are present, the project biologist shall require modifications to the project to avoid adverse impacts to monarch butterflies.
BIO-4 The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to wetlands and waters west of the project area: a. All exposed surfaces shall be wetted periodically to prevent significant dust. b. All stockpiled soil shall be covered during periods of rain. c. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet from the potentially jurisdictional drainages. The owner shall ensure that contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of work, the owner shall ensure that there is a plan to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. d. Any and all spoils (e.g., dirt, debris, construction-related materials) generated during project activities shall be placed where they cannot enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages. e. All exposed soils in the work area (resulting from project activities) shall be stabilized immediately following the completion of work to prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control BMPs, such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel
32 73 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
or rock-lined drainages, water check bars, and broadcast straw, can be used. Straw wattles, if used, shall be made of biodegradable fabric (e.g., burlap) and free of monofilament netting. All exposed soil shall be protected from erosion with jute matting on slopes. At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages. f. Before completion of the project, all exposed or disturbed surfaces shall be permanently protected from erosion with reseeding and landscaping.
BIO-5 The following measures shall be implemented to minimize impacts to nesting birds, as required by the MBTA: a. Tree trimming activities and/or vegetation removal activities (including shrubs and/or grasses) should be conducted outside of nesting bird season. However, if project activities are conducted during nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), preconstruction nest surveys shall be conducted in and near the project (within 500 feet for large raptors and 300 feet for all other birds) by a qualified biologist. If nesting is identified during the preconstruction survey, then a buffer shall be established of a size determined by the project biologist to be sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and/or the project shall be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct take of the identified nests, eggs, and/or young.
2.5 Cultural Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? (c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
The project is located in a long-established residential neighborhood. No historical resources have been discovered by other construction projects in the area. No known historical resources have been identified on the project site or within the project work areas. The LCLUP Potential Archaeological Resources Map
33 74 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
does not identify the site or adjacent properties as a potentially sensitive area that could contain archaeological resources.28
The project has a low potential to impact historical resources given the scope of project activities and limited ground disturbance, which includes a minimal amount of grading and excavation, and construction of two single-family homes. The environmental awareness training discussed in Mitigation Measure BIO-1a would include a description of cultural resources. In the event that a previously undiscovered historical resource is encountered during the project, all work in the immediate vicinity of the resource would be halted until a qualified professional can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21083.2. The project applicant, in consultation with the City, other applicable agencies, and a qualified professional would determine the appropriate measures, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and PRC Section 21083.2. Compliance with these mandatory regulatory compliance measures would ensure the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
A significant adverse effect would occur if grading or excavation activities associated with a project were to disturb previously unknown archeological resources. The project area is in a long-established residential neighborhood and there is no known presence of cultural resources in the project area.29 The absence of known archaeological resources does not preclude their existence at the subsurface level. The project would require digging for utility and foundation work, as well as minor grading. Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to discovery of unrecorded archeological resources. No prehistoric habitation or other sites are known to exist within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of finding archeological resources on site is considered low; however, it is possible that unanticipated discoveries of archeological resources may occur during ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction. However, potential impacts to archeological resources would be considered less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
A significant adverse effect would occur if grading or excavation activities associated with a project were to disturb previously interred human remains.
The disposition of burials falls first under the general prohibition on disturbing or removing human remains under California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. More specifically, remains suspected to be Native American are treated under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; PRC Section 5097.98 illustrates the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If human remains are discovered during construction, no further disturbance to the site shall occur, and the County of San Mateo (County) Coroner must be notified (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.5 and PRC 5097.98).
28 Half Moon Bay. 2020. Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Land Use Plan. Chapter 8: Cultural Resources. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3150/8-Cultural-Resources_HMB-LCLUP_2020-Final-CC- Draft_Sept-2020. Accessed October 13, 2020. 29 Cozzolino, Brittney. 2020. Personal Communication between, Brittney Cozzolino Senior Planner, City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department and Juliet Bolding, Planner, SWCA Environmental Consultants. January 14, 2020.
34 75 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
The City has contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for past projects but has never received an indication of interest. The project area has been heavily developed and there is no known presence of cultural resources in the project area. The absence of Native American sacred places does not preclude their existence at the subsurface level. The project would require digging for utility and foundation work, as well as minor grading. Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to discovery of unrecorded human remains. No prehistoric habitation or other sites are known to exist within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Therefore, the likelihood of finding human remains on site is considered low; however, it is possible that unanticipated discoveries of human remains may occur during ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction. However, potential impacts to human remains would be considered less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
Mitigation Measures
There are no known historical resources, archaeological resources, or human remains in the project area. The following measures are provided to avoid and/or reduce impacts to a less than significant level in the event unknown resources are encountered during project implementation.
CUL-1 In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work within 50 feet of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist, deemed suitable by the City, can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. In the event that an archeological resource is discovered that meets the criteria to be considered an historical resource or unique archeological resource under CEQA, the archeologist shall prescribe additional measures. These measures may include, but are not limited to, testing, data recovery, and additional archeological monitoring. In the event that a resource is, or is suspected to be, Native American in origin, Native American monitoring shall also be required. The Owner, in consultation with the City, shall implement all measures prescribed by the qualified archaeologist. Following these measures will avoid adverse impacts to archaeological resources.
CUL-2 The project shall comply with the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 regarding the discovery of human remains:
If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction demolition and/or grading activities, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following procedure shall be observed: a. Stop immediately and contact the County Coroner: 50 Tower Road San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 3120-5562 b. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. c. The NAHC would immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American.
35 76 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods.
2.6 Energy
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Result in a potentially significant environmental ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Energy use during project construction would be short term and temporary. Construction of the project would require the use of construction equipment and worker vehicles that would use energy. As previously described, there are no established thresholds of significance for construction-related energy use; therefore, energy use during construction activities was not estimated. As discussed in Section 2.8, Greenhouse Gases, the project would implement the following BMPs to reduce construction-related GHG emissions, which would also improve energy efficiency: • Alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) should be used on at least 15% of construction vehicles/equipment, if feasible and construction waste material would be recycled as required by state and regional regulations.30
Recycling construction waste would reduce the amount of energy used in the production of new materials.
Due to the relatively small scale and short duration of construction activities, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and construction impacts would be less than significant.
The project would be required to comply with the energy efficiency standards in the latest version of the California Building Code. California set a goal calling for all new residential buildings to be Zero Net Energy by 2020; that is, they have the potential to produce enough energy on-site to offset their projected annual energy use. Though the 2019 standards do not require full Zero Net Energy, they do require buildings to be efficient enough that their annual electricity use can be offset by a modestly sized solar
30 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. Municipal Code. Chapter 14.50. Requirement for Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/#!/HalfMoonBay14/HalfMoonBay1450.html#14.50. Accessed September 10, 2020.
36 77 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
array. The 2019 energy efficiency standards include standards for energy-saving appliances, insulation, water heating, lighting, and photovoltaic panels. Compliance with the California Building standards would reduce operational energy use and ensure that the project would have a less than significant impact related to wasteful energy use. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 described in Section 2.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, would further improve energy efficiency and further reduce already less than significant impacts. Measure GHG-1 would require construction workers living outside of the county to meet at designated areas and carpool to the project area to the extent feasible. Measure GHG-2 would require, to the extent possible, all off-road construction engines meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines.
The project is required to be consistent with Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2019 Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires installation of solar panels on new residential construction. In addition, any new residences for which applications are submitted after January 1, 2020 may be required to install level 1 or 2 electric vehicle charging stations to contribute towards the goals of Senate Bill (SB) 100. The project would comply with all required building standards; therefore, the project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The project is required to be consistent with the Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as well as BAAQMD’s BMPs to reduce construction-related emissions. The 2019 UBC requires installation of solar panels on new residential construction. In addition, any new residences for which applications are submitted after January 1, 2020 may be required to install level 1 or 2 electric vehicle charging stations to contribute towards the goals of SB 100. The project would comply with all required building standards; therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.
2.7 Geology and Soils
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ delineated 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ topsoil?
37 78 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (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 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ☐ ☐ substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ☒ of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal ☐ ☐ ☐ systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ☒ resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 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.
The project site is located in a seismically active region. Moderate to strong earthquakes can occur on numerous local faults. Surface rupture is defined as surface displacement which occurs along the surface trace of the causative fault during an earthquake. The project site is approximately 4.3 miles from the nearest active fault, the San Gregorio-Seal Cove Fault Zone,31 and 5.8 miles from the San Andreas Fault Zone.32 No known active faults cross the project site, and the project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 33 Based on these considerations, the potential for surface rupture at the project site is considered low. The design and construction of the project is required to comply with the building codes related to seismic risk such as the California Building Code (CBC) and Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, which incorporates the International Building Code. Compliance with current requirements of these codes would minimize the potential to expose people or structures to substantial risk or loss or injury. Therefore, impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake faults would be less than significant.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
The project site is located in a seismically active region that has experienced generally moderate to high levels of shaking during past earthquakes. The site is in relatively close proximity to two active faults (4.3
31 CDOC. 1976. State of California Special Studies Zones, Half Moon Bay Quadrangle. CDOC, Division of Mines and Geology. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. Accessed September 10, 2020. 32 CDOC. 1974, 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Woodside Quadrangle. CDOC, California Geological Survey. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. Accessed September 10, 2020 33 Ibid.
38 79 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
miles to the San Gregorio-Seal Cove Fault and 5.8 miles to the San Andreas Fault Zone) which means it would likely experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from future earthquakes.
The project sponsors would be required to submit a soils report in order to obtain a building permit from the City’s Community Development Department, which would ensure that project plans and specifications comply with the CBC and local amendments to the code, where applicable. Among many seismic requirements, the CBC requires foundations and structures to be designed and constructed to withstand the ground motions (i.e., peak ground accelerations [g]) that have a 10% chance of being exceeded in 50 years (equivalent to a 1/475 annual chance of being exceeded). The project area is estimated to have a 10% probability of exceeding a 0.504 g in 50 years, which is an intensity that would present severe perceived shaking and has the potential to cause moderate to heavy structural damage. 34
The 2019 CBC and standard geotechnical engineering practice requires identification of seismic design parameters to inform all earthwork requirements, foundation designs and concrete/building material specifications. Design and construction of the project in accordance with the CBC would be sufficient to ensure public exposure to earthquake risks would remain minimal. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
The project site has a medium potential for liquefaction.35 As discussed above, the project Applicants would be required to submit a soils report that complies with the CBC.
The 2019 CBC and standard geotechnical engineering practice requires identification of seismic design parameters to inform all earthwork requirements, foundation designs and concrete/building material specifications. Design and construction of the project in accordance with the CBC would be sufficient to ensure public exposure to risks related to seismic-induced ground failure would remain minimal. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
The project site is essentially flat and has no landslide potential. No impact would occur. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
A significant impact would occur if a project would expose large areas to the erosional effects of wind and water for a protracted period of time, resulting in substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil. The project site is essentially flat and the underlying Botella clay loam soil36 has a low erosion potential.37 Clearing, excavation, and grading activities at the project site may result in short-term erosion impacts.
34 CDOC. 2008. Ground Motion Interpolator Website. CDOC, California Geological Survey. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ground-motion-interpolator. Accessed September 10, 2020. 35 City of Half Moon Bay. 2014. Plan Half Moon Bay. Existing Conditions, Trends and Opportunities Assessment Report. Figure 5-3, Liquefaction Susceptibility. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/174/HMB-Existing- Conditions-Report-PDF. Accessed September 10, 2020. 36 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soils Survey results webpage. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed September 10, 2020. 37 City of Half Moon Bay. 2015. Plan Half Moon Bay, Existing Conditions Report. Pp. 5-101. Table 5-6. Soils Types within Planning Areas. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/174/HMB-Existing-Conditions-Report- PDF. Accessed September 10, 2020.
39 80 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
The project would not require large amounts of excavation for foundations or road construction. The project would require a total of approximately 40 cubic yards for construction—20 cubic yards each at 565 and 575 Seymour Street.
As required by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the SMCWSPPP, the project would implement BMPs to reduce erosion during construction. Since the total site is under 1 acre (approximately 0.52 acre), the project Applicants would be required to implement a City-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP), per the requirements of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the SMCWSPPP. The plan would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation impacts and stabilize disturbed bare earth areas. Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, provides additional information about the ESCP and Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit requirements and related permits.
The addition of impervious surfaces for residential development could increase the stormwater runoff volume and rate compared to existing conditions, which could in turn accelerate soil erosion and loss of topsoil if stormwater were conveyed onto adjacent undeveloped land. However, as described in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, operational runoff generated along Seymour Street would be retained and directed into individual detention basins for each residence. The detention basins would be sized to contain water from a 10-year storm or 2-hour duration. Excess stormwater (from a storm greater than a 10-year, 2-hour storm event) may be directed to the existing detention culvert and basin at 555 Seymour Street, or allowed to flow onto Seymour Street. Additional stormwater runoff would flow west on Seymour Street, enter the open space area west of Seymour Street area by overland flow, and could potentially empty into Seymour Ditch. The amount of stormwater that reaches Seymour Ditch from Seymour Street is generally small. The parcel map and subsequent development will be treated as a C.3 regulated project. As such, approval of a Stormwater Management Plan and Report will be required prior to development. Compliance with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit and the SMCWSPPP would reduce impacts from water-related erosion to a less-than- significant level. c. Would the project 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?
The project site is essentially flat and has no potential for landslide or lateral spreading. Botella clay loam, which underlays the project site, has low potential for liquefaction. The project sponsors would be required to submit a soils report in order to obtain building permits from the City’s Community Development Department, which would ensure that project plans and specifications comply with the CBC and local amendments to the code, where applicable. No impact would occur. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The expansion potential of soils underlying the project area varies, but is generally considered very low to high, depending on the clay content. The Botella series of soils has a clay content between 18 and 35%; therefore, the Botella clay loam underlying the project would have a low-to-moderate shrink-swell potential.38
38 National Cooperative Soil Survey. 2012. Botella Series. Available at: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BOTELLA.html. Accessed September 10, 2020.
40 81 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Soil expansion and shrink-swell potential is typically addressed though preparation of site-specific soil engineering reports and compliance with the UBC. A detailed soils report would be required for both residences to determine the potential for expansive soils prior to the issuance of permits. Impacts would be determined and mitigated, if necessary, by the soils report. This impact would be less than significant. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The two residences under the project would connect into the existing sewer system, which is maintained by Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM). The project would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Geologic units from a geological map of the county were analyzed for their potential paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological sensitivity is defined as the potential for a geological unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. In its Standard Guidelines for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Non-renewable Paleontological Resources,39 the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) defines four categories of paleontological sensitivity (potential) for Rock units: high, low, undetermined, and no potential. No records searches or field surveys were conducted as part of the paleontological review. The project traverses three distinct geologic units: QMT (Pleistocene), Tp (upper Miocene and Pliocene), and QYF (Holocene).40 Of these geologic units covered, QMT and Tp have high sensitivity, and Qyt has low-to-high sensitivity for paleontological resources.
The City LCLUP indicates that no paleontological resources of known significance have been identified in the city and they are extremely limited in the entire county Coastal Zone. 41 The project has the potential to impact paleontological resources if the work affects sensitive, previously undisturbed surficial sediment or sedimentary rock. Although portions of the project occur on geologic units with high sensitivity for paleontological resources, the potential for significant paleontological discovery and impact are anticipated to be low within the proposed work areas because the project is on flat land and includes only minor grading. In the unlikely event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the project Applicants would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. As a result, project activities would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 In the unlikely event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the project Applicants shall comply with PRC Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244, which prohibit the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature from lands under the jurisdiction of the state or any county, city, district,
39 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Available at: http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx. Accessed September 10, 2020. 40 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1983. Geologic Map of San Mateo County, California. Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_49.htm. Accessed September 10, 2020. 41 City of Half Moon Bay. 1993. LCLUP Chapter 6, p. 228. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/154/Local-Coastal- Program-Land-Use-Plan. Accessed September 10, 2020.
41 82 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. To be consistent with these PRC Sections, in the event that paleontological resources are exposed during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under the provisions of CEQA, the paleontologist shall prescribe, and the project Applicants shall implement, additional measures such as testing or data recovery to avoid impacts to the resources.
2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG compounds in the earth’s atmosphere that play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Specifically, these gases allow high-frequency solar radiation to enter the earth’s atmosphere but retain the low-frequency energy, which is radiated back from the earth to space, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Increased concentrations of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere are thought to be linked to global climate change, such as rising surface temperatures, melting icebergs and snowpack, rising sea levels, and the increasing frequency and magnitude of severe weather. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, ozone, water vapor, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG. Other GHGs are less abundant but have higher global warming potential than CO2. Thus, emissions of other GHGs are frequently expressed in the equivalent mass of CO2, denoted as CO2e. GHGs are the result of natural and anthropogenic activities. Forest fires, decomposition, industrial processes, landfills, and consumption of fossil fuels for power generation, transportation, heating, and cooking are the primary sources of GHG emissions.
As discussed in Section 2.3, Air Quality, the project would construct two single family residences, which falls under the minimum screening criteria of 56 dwelling units for greenhouse gas emissions. Construction of the project would require the use of construction equipment and worker vehicles that would generate GHG emissions. As previously described, the BAAQMD has not established thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. Therefore, GHG emissions during construction
42 83 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
activities was not estimated. The Project would comply with all measures required by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines42. These include the following for GHG reduction: • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; and • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
Compliance with the required BAAQMD measures would ensure that impacts are less than significant. In addition, the project would implement the following BMP to further reduce construction-related GHG emissions, as required by the California Green Building Standards Code: • At least 65% of all construction waste or demolition material shall be recycled.43
In addition, the project would implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-3, shown below, which would further reduce construction-related GHG emissions. Measure GHG-1 would require construction workers living outside of the county to meet at designated areas and carpool to the project area to the extent feasible. Measure GHG-2 would promote the use of alternative fuels for construction vehicles. Measure GHG-3 would require all off-road construction engines meet Tier 2 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. These measures would be included in the construction contract and plans and be the responsibility of the construction contractor to carry out. With implementation of BMPs and GHG-1 through GHG-3, construction-related GHG emissions would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As discussed in Section 2.3, Air Quality, the project is an infill development project that would construct two single family residences, which falls under the minimum screening criteria of 56 dwelling units for greenhouse gas emissions.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation related to GHGs. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 To the extent feasible, construction workers living outside San Mateo County shall meet at designated areas and be transported (in carpools) to the project area.
GHG-2 Alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) should be used on at least 15% of construction vehicles/equipment, if feasible
42 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed October 7, 2020. 43 CalRecycle, 2002. Frequently Asked Questions: California Green Building Code. Available at: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/library/canddmodel/instruction/faq#diversion. Accessed October 15, 2020.
43 84 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
GHG-3 To the extent feasible, off-road construction diesel engines shall meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines.
2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ acutely hazardous materials, substances, 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 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government 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 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (g) Expose people or structures, either directly or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Evaluation a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations or would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors.
Construction of the project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. These materials include paints, adhesives, surface coatings, cleaning agents, fuels, and oils that are typically associated with development of any urban infill project. As described in Chapter 1, Project Description, construction activities would be temporary, lasting approximately 1 year for each residence. These temporary construction activities involving the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be conducted in compliance with all health and safety requirements such as County and
44 85 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
City General Plan policies, CCR Sections 337 through 340, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code Article 1, and CCR Title 19, Public Safety, Division 2 (if required). Because the project Applicants would comply with applicable regulations and laws pertaining to the transport, storage, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials, the exposure of the public, construction workers, and the environment to hazardous materials would be less than significant.
The project includes the development of two single-family homes. Operation of the proposed residences would involve the use and storage of small quantities of potentially hazardous materials such as cleaning solvents, paints, and pesticides for landscaping. Other household hazardous materials could include cleaning solvents, waxes, dyes, toners, paints, bleach, grease, and petroleum products that are typically associated with residential land uses. The project generally would not produce significant amounts of hazardous waste or use or transport hazardous waste beyond those materials typically used in single- family households. Overall, the use of household hazardous materials would be similar to the existing use of surrounding residences. Thus, the operation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the environment or public, and the impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
A significant impact may occur if a project could create an upset or accident condition involving hazardous materials. No hazardous contamination sites are located within the vicinity of the project site and thus there is no reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials from existing hazardous contamination 44, 45 Construction of the project would use small amounts of hazardous materials such as diesel fuel. The BMPs implemented for the SMCWSPPP would contain minor spills during construction. During operation, the use of household hazardous materials would be minimal, in small quantities, and would be associated with routing maintenance, cleaning, and landscaping activities. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, and the impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if a project site is within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school site, and the project is projected to release hazardous emissions that would exceed regulatory thresholds and would pose a health hazard. The closest schools are Sea Crest School, located approximately 0.28 mile northeast of the project, and Alvin S. Hatch Elementary School located approximately 0.50 mile northwest of the project. There are no schools located within 0.25 mile. No impact would occur.
44 State Water Resources Control Board (California Water Boards). 2018. GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed on September 10, 2020. 45 California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC). 2018. EnviroStor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map. Accessed on September 10, 2020.
45 86 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various state agencies to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized release from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells, and solid waste facilities from which there is known migration of hazardous waste, and to submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. In meeting the provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” database resources such as EnviroStor and GeoTracker provide information regarding identified facilities. According to EnviroStor and GeoTracker, the project site is not located in the vicinity of a hazardous materials site; 46, 47 therefore, no impact would occur. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, and no impact would occur. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a plan. The nearest emergency evacuation route is Highway 1. 48 Highways 1 and 92 provide the only evacuation routes into and out of the city. Construction of two houses under the project would result in minimal amounts of traffic related to worker trips, the delivery of materials, and disposal of excavated soils. The two houses would be constructed at the corner of Highway 1 and Seymour Street. Construction traffic would not impede public access and would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Traffic generated by the proposed two single-family homes would be negligible and would not adversely affect the level of service of nearby roadways or intersections. During the construction phase, the City will require an encroachment permit for any temporary activities that would affect the public right-of-way and a traffic management plan is required to ensure that emergency access is not impaired. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and the impact would be less than significant. g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and would pose a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. The project
46 California Water Boards. 2018. GeoTracker Website. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/. Accessed on September 10, 2020. 47 DTSC. 2018. EnviroStor Website. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map. Accessed on September 10, 2020. 48 City of Half Moon Bay. 2013. General Plan. Circulation Element. Available at: https://www.half-moon- bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/187/2013-Circulation-Element-PDF. Accessed September 10, 2020.
46 87 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses site is located on the flat coastal plain and is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). 49 . The closest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the project site, in the hilly terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains.50 However, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) the project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI).51 The WUI area is best described as a wildland-urban intermix with homes scattered amongst wildland fuels. However, the project site is located within a substantially developed area with existing infrastructure, including fire hydrants. It is approximately 1,500 ft from a fire station and the project has been reviewed by Coastside Fire Protection District (CFPD) staff and will be required to comply with CFPD requirements prior to building occupancy. Although the project could expose people or structures to a risk of wildland fire, it is an infill development project and will comply with all CFPD requirements to reduce risks, therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ off-site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ of pollutants due to project inundation?
49 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Very High Fire Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Half Moon Bay. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5983/half_moon_bay.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2020. 50 CAL FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6802/fhszs_map41.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2020. 51 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2020. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat Interactive Map. Available at: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb&layerI d=0. Accessed October 6, 2020.
47 88 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Activities associated with construction of the project could have a significant impact if they resulted in violation of waste discharge requirements under the San Mateo County Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit from contaminated runoff entering Seymour Ditch.
The SMCWSPPP is a partnership of the City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG), each incorporated city and town in the county, and the County, which share a common NPDES permit. The Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit was issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB52 in compliance with the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan53 and the NPDES Program. Participating agencies (including the County and the City) must comply with the provisions of the countywide permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, water quality impacts from stormwater runoff during both construction and operational periods of projects.
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of each residence under the project would be required to implement an erosion/pollution control plan under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit54 and the SMCWSPPP.55 Each erosion/pollution control plan must include site-specific BMPs that are designed to prevent runoff from construction areas to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality during project construction. The plan would also include design elements and BMPs for construction areas, such as fueling and equipment washing areas and trash and hazardous material storage areas.
Construction of each single-family residence would require minor grading and excavation for utilities and foundations, as well as construction. The two houses would be constructed concurrently. Minor
52 San Francisco RWQCB. 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. Order No. R2-2015-0049. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. November 19. Available at: https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/R2-2015-0049_Adopted_0.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2020. 53 San Francisco RWQCB. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. May 4. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/basinplan/web/docs/BP_all_chapters.p df. Accessed September 11, 2020. 54 San Francisco RWQCB. 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. Available at: https://www.smcsustainability.org/download/energy-water/stormwater/R2-2015-0049.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2020. 55 San Mateo County. 2020. San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Construction Webpage. Available at: https://www.flowstobay.org/construction. Accessed September 11, 2020.
48 89 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
excavation and grading could result in an increase in erosion and sedimentation from the project area into the stormwater system and potentially the Seymour Street drainage. Although Seymour Street drainage is protected by a curb and gutter along both sides of Seymour Street to about 200 feet west of the project site, construction materials and construction waste—such as wood, wallboard, insulation, paint, and other debris—could also enter Seymour Street drainage and the stormwater system if not properly used and stored. Construction runoff from a major storm event could potentially flow westward from Seymour Street and/or Seymour Street drainage and enter Seymour Ditch west of Seymour Street. Construction activities associated with each single-family residence would require the presence of construction vehicles, heavy equipment and materials, and construction crews. In addition to stormwater runoff and potential resulting water quality and sedimentation impacts, there is the potential for hazardous materials, including petroleum products associated with diesel vehicle and equipment use and contaminants from paving materials, concrete mixing, pouring and washout, and sanitary facilities, to enter Seymour Ditch. Following vegetation clearing and grading, excavation of approximately 40 cubic yards of soils would occur and concrete would be poured for the foundations. All of these activities have a low potential to contribute pollutants to Seymour Street drainage and Seymour Ditch (particularly turbidity and high pH washwater) that can affect water quality and may violate water quality standards if left uncontrolled. Construction activities for the two single-family dwellings would last approximately 1 year.
For each single-family residence, the project Applicants are required to submit a Lot Drainage Plan and on-site stormwater detention plan to the City as part of the construction plans, as well as a Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects. The Lot Drainage Plans must include design details and supporting calculations for storm water detention on-site for the additional run-off from a 10-year frequency storm of 2-hour duration. The Lot Drainage Plans must show how the surface runoff is retained on-site and the remainder is drained to the public right-of-way. Plans shall show how the rear and side yards would properly drain to an approved BMP facility, and how the finished grades on the property relate to the existing grades on adjacent property. The plan shall include pad elevation, finished floor elevation, site high and low points, drainage swales, area drains, and existing grade at adjacent property. The permittee shall provide appropriate measures to discharge the flood waters from any unfinished floor areas.
The project Applicants would be required to submit a Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects to the City prior to approval, as required by the SMCWSPPP. The Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects identifies stormwater BMPs that the project Applicants propose to implement. These stormwater BMPs include, but are not limited to: • Attach the SMCWSPPP’s construction BMP plan sheet to project plans and require the contractor to implement applicable BMPs on the plan sheet; • Temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established; • Perform clearing and earth-moving activities only during dry weather; • Trap sediment on-site using BMPs such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, compost blankets or jute mats, covers for soil stock piles, etc.; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers, dikes, mulching, or other areas, as appropriate; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • No cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where washwater is confined and treated; • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater;
49 90 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
• Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees/subcontractors regarding construction BMPs; and • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains or watercourses.
Implementation of the erosion/pollution control plan, as required by law, would prevent construction of the two proposed single-family residences from violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrading surface water or groundwater quality, and would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
OPERATION
The single-family residence at 565 Seymour Street would not exceed 35% or approximately 4,340 square feet (0.10 acre), of impervious surface. The residence at 575 Seymour Street would not exceed 35% or approximately 3,523 square feet (0.08 acre) of impervious surface. The maximum combined acreage for the two residences is approximately 0.18 acre. Since plans have not been submitted to date, a conservative assumption includes the house footprints, driveways, and walkways as impermeable surfaces. However, the driveways and walkways could be constructed of permeable paving stones which would reduce the impervious surface. As described in Section 1.5, Proposed Project, Utilities, both residences would include a drainage plan to convey roof and driveway runoff to a detention basin designed to prevent an increase in runoff to neighboring properties, in order to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Per City requirements, construction plans submitted for building permits shall include a Lot Drainage Plan showing how the surface runoff is retained on the site and the remainder is drained to the public right-of-way. Plans shall include design details and supporting calculations for stormwater detention on-site for the additional run-off from a 10-year frequency storm of 2-hour duration. Overflow from a larger storm event would be directed to the existing culvert and stormwater basin at 555 Seymour Street or allowed to flow onto Seymour Street. Plans shall show how the rear and side yards would properly drain to an approved BMP facility, and how the finished grades on the property relate to the existing grades on adjacent properties. The Plans shall include pad elevation, finished floor elevation, site high and low points, drainage swales, area drains, and existing grade at adjacent properties. The permittee shall provide appropriate measures to discharge the stormwater runoff waters from any unfinished floor areas. Each detention basin would either be discharged to Seymour Street and flow south and west across the street by overland flow to the North Wavecrest property and Seymour Ditch, or be connected to the existing stormwater system west of the project. The project would be required to meet City requirements for storm drainage.
Erosion and sedimentation may temporarily increase post-construction because of soils that have been loosened and changes in drainage patterns. Development of each single-family residence could result in an increase in the levels of urban pollutants and litter entering Seymour Street drainage Pollutants from the project would likely be consistent with suburban medium-density residential areas and roads. However, the properties would be landscaped to stabilize soils; therefore, the addition of two homes in an established residential neighborhood would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. This impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
A potentially significant impact would occur if a project includes deep excavations resulting in the potential to interfere with groundwater movement, the withdrawal of groundwater or paving of existing
50 91 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
permeable surfaces important to groundwater recharge. The project would be served by the Coastside County Water District (CCWD) water supply system. Although the project would increase the density and population of the existing neighborhood, the increase would be negligible and would not substantially reduce water supply reliability or impact groundwater withdrawal. Development of the project would not include any groundwater wells.
The project area is located with the State Water Resources Control Board (California Water Boards) San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. The project area is underlain by an alluvial aquifer referred to as the Half Moon Bay Terrace groundwater basin, which supplies limited water for domestic and municipal uses (golf courses). Groundwater in the project area flows from east to west, discharging into the Pacific Ocean.
The project would result in an increase in impervious surface area. The project would add a maximum of approximately 7,863 square feet (0.18 acre) of impervious surface area (approximately 4,340 square feet for 565 Seymour Street and 3,523 square feet for 575 Seymour Street). Impervious surfaces prevent the infiltration of runoff into the underlying soil and can interfere with groundwater recharge. According to the CCWD,56 there are no municipal water supply wells in the vicinity of the project. The two single- family homes would implement drainage plans that include detention basins for stormwater, which would allow for percolation into the groundwater table. The project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge and no impact would occur. No mitigation is necessary.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Planned earthwork and grading activities on the project site would involve a total cut and fill of approximately 40 cubic yards: approximately 20 cubic yards for each of the proposed single-family residences. The project site is essentially flat, and all project components would be required to implement erosion control measures as discussed under question Hydrology (a), above.
Construction of the project would include implementation of erosion and sediment control and pollution prevention BMPs under the SMCWSPPP. As discussed under Question 2.10(a), stormwater flows would continue to be directed to storm drain facilities in Seymour Street. Operation of the project would result in an increase of impervious surface compared to existing conditions (a maximum of approximately 7,863 square feet). The project Applicants would be required to submit drainage plans and include retention basins for both residences; therefore, they would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would cause erosion. The project site would not alter the course of a stream or river. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site resulting in substantial erosion or siltation, and the impact would be less than significant.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
A significant impact may occur if a project results in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding conditions affecting the project site or nearby properties. There are no flooding hazards in the project area. As described in Section 2.10(a) and 2.10(b),
56 Coastside County Water District (CCWD). 2020. District Maps Webpage. Available at: http://www.coastsidewater.org/distribution/district-maps.html. Accessed September 11, 2020.
51 92 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
the project would result in a relatively small increase in impervious surface area (a maximum of approximately 7,863 square feet for the two residences). Residences would be required to implement stormwater retention systems to contain a 10-year storm of 2-hour duration. Therefore, the project the project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. This impact would be less than significant.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The project site drains to Seymour Street drainage. Stormwater from Seymour Street is directed primarily to the undeveloped North Wavecrest area. Some runoff could make it to the Seymour Ditch which drains to the Pacific Ocean. Seymour Ditch is an ephemeral feature that carries stormwater runoff. There is no history of flooding in Seymour Ditch, however there is recent history of erosion and coastal bluff retreat where Seymour Ditch enters the Pacific Ocean. As described in Questions 2.10(a) and 2.10(b), the project would result in a relatively small increase in impervious surface area (a maximum of approximately 7,863 square feet for the two residences). Residences would be required to implement stormwater retention systems to contain a 10-year storm of 2-hour duration. Therefore, the project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would exceed the capacity of Seymour Ditch. The retention basin would catch most rainwater and retain most pollutants. This impact would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
A significant impact may occur if a project were located in a flood hazard area and would impede or redirect flood flows. However, the project is not mapped in a flood hazard zone and is not located in an area with known localized flooding issues57. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impact would occur.
d. Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project is not located in flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zone.58 Therefore, the project would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. No impact would occur. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project is located in the Lower Pilarcitos Creek Subbasin of the Half Moon Bay Terrace groundwater basin. The Half Moon Bay Terrace groundwater basin does not have a sustainable groundwater management plan and is on the list of groundwater basins with low priority for developing such a plan. The project would rely on municipal water sources and would not obstruct groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would not project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and no impact would occur.
57. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=564%20Magnolia%20Street.%20Half%20Moon%20Bay%20CA#searchres ultsanchor. Accessed September 11, 2020. 58 City of Half Moon Bay. 2014. Plan Half Moon Bay. Existing Conditions, Trends, and Opportunities Assessment. pp. 5-79 to 5- 87. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/174/HMB-Existing-Conditions-Report-PDF. Accessed September 11, 2020.
52 93 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
The project would abide by all requirements of the SMCWSPPP and the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.59 The project would not conflict with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin because it would comply with all applicable requirements of both the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit and the SMCWSPPP permit. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
The project shall comply with Mitigation Measure BIO-4 to minimize impacts to wetlands and waters.
2.11 Land Use and Planning
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project would subdivide one existing single-family residential lot into three single-family residential lots and construct two single family homes in an established residential neighborhood that is zoned for residential development. It would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
A project would normally have a significant impact related to land use consistency if it would be inconsistent with the General Plan or its elements, a local coastal plan, or adopted environmental goals or policies, or if it would require a General Plan amendment or zone change.
The project is located within the California Coastal Zone. The project was reviewed for consistency with policies relating to the LCLUP and the City Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). 60 The project was found to be consistent with City policies and development regulations. The project is contiguous with other developed areas. Existing public services and utilities can be extended to the new development without causing
59 San Francisco RWQCB. 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/R2- 2015-0049.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2020. 60 City of Half Moon Bay. 1993. Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan, Chapter 9: Development. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/154/Local-Coastal-Program-Land-Use-Plan. Accessed January 23, 2020.
53 94 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
significant impacts. The project has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the Coastside County Water District, there is existing capacity to accommodate the two new houses. The project would not impede coastal access, contribute to shoreline erosion or bluff retreat, or otherwise conflict with any other environmental policy expressed in the LCLUP. Additionally, the project does not propose any new, expanded, or modified land use in the project area and would not conflict with the existing and surrounding uses. No impact would occur.
The project would subdivide one existing R-1-B-1 residential lot to create three R-1-B-1 lots and construct two new residences. Both new single-family residences would be required to obtain CDPs and would be subject to Architectural Review. The standard lot size for R-1-B-1 areas is 6,000 square feet. All three resulting lots would be greater than the standard lot size (20,678 square feet, 12,411 square feet, and 10,066 square feet, respectively) and are not anticipated to require variances from the City. The project would not require a General Plan amendment or zone change. This impact would be less than significant.
2.12 Mineral Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
A significant impact may occur if a project site is located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally important mineral resource, or if a project would convert an existing or future regionally important mineral extraction use to another use, or if a project would affect access to a site used or potentially available for regionally important mineral resource extraction.
The project is located in an area zoned Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3 for aggregate mineral resources. 61 MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is identified as an area containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources of regional or statewide significance would occur.
61 California Department of Mines and Geology. 1983. Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors. San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 143, Plate 2.1. Available at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_143/PartII/Plate_2-1.pdf. Accessed September 11, 2020.
54 95 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
A significant impact would occur if a project is located in an area used or available for extraction of a locally-important mineral resource and the project converted an existing or potential future locally- important mineral extraction use to another use or if a project affected access to a site in use or potentially available for locally-important mineral resource extraction.
Neither the project site nor the surrounding area is identified as an area containing mineral deposits of local significance.62 Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources of local significance would occur.
2.13 Noise
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project result in: (a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ groundborne noise levels? (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
The residential uses surrounding the project area represent the majority of the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. Additional sensitive receptors would be the users of Naomi Patridge Trail.
The City has established restrictions limiting construction and similar noise generating activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays. The City Engineer may approve exceptions to these
62 City of Half Moon Bay. 2014. Plan Half Moon Bay. Existing Conditions, Trends, and Opportunities Assessment. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/174/HMB-Existing-Conditions-Report-PDF. Accessed September 11, 2020.
55 96 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
hours, if necessary, to facilitate the orderly completion of work and minimize disruption to the community63. The project Applicant would be required to comply with construction hour restrictions.
Construction activities would generate noise from construction activities that would vary over the construction periods, and would include on-site equipment such as ½-ton truck, backhoe, cement truck, 10 cubic yards dump truck, semi-truck flatbed, site delivery truck, water truck, as well as smaller equipment such as air compressors, saws, hammers, and other power tools. There would be secondary noise from construction worker vehicles and vendor deliveries. During construction, noise-generating activities would occur at the project site between the hours of between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturdays; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays, in accordance with the City’s noise ordinance. No nighttime construction is anticipated. Because construction noise would comply with local noise regulations, impacts related to construction noise would be less than significant.
The project would not generate stationary noise or operational noise in the long term, aside from the typical noises generated by users of a single-family residence. Noise generated from single-family homes would be in keeping with neighborhood noise; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
From a CEQA standpoint, it is not an impact for a proposed development to be located adjacent to a highway or other such area that would subject the development to noise. Noise impacts on residential development is addressed in the City General Plan Noise Element. The proposed residences would have conditions of approval to ensure interior and exterior sound levels conform with those required by the Noise Element. b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction activities (e.g., ground-disturbing activities, including movement of heavy construction equipment and hauling of demolition debris and soil from the project site) may generate localized groundborne vibration and noise. Blasting or pile-driving activities are not anticipated during construction of the project. Generally, construction-related groundborne vibration is not expected to extend beyond 25 feet from the generating source. The project would construct two new residences on Seymour Street. The closest sensitive receptors are residences on the 500 and 600 blocks of Magnolia Street and the 500 block of Seymour Street. Residences on Magnolia Street are separated from the Seymour construction area by approximately 100 feet. Therefore, groundborne vibration from on-site construction is not anticipated. Hauling of soils and debris could generate vibrations along local haul routes. The project is anticipated to require a total of approximately eight haul trucks for (four for each residence). The project would be required to adhere to the City Noise Ordinance as a standard condition of approval. Therefore, any annoyance to residents along local haul routes would be short-term and temporary, and impacts related to groundborne noise or vibration would be less than significant. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project is located approximately 5 miles from the nearest airport, Half Moon Bay Airport. It is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. No impact would occur.
63 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. Chapter 14.40. Hours of Construction. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/#!/HalfMoonBay14/HalfMoonBay1440.html#14.40. Accessed September 11, 2020.
56 97 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
2.14 Population and Housing
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
City and county general plans develop growth plans and projections for the areas in their jurisdictions. A significant impact would occur if a project included a General Plan amendment, which could result in an increase in population over that projected in the adopted General Plan, or if a project would induce substantial growth on the project site or surrounding area.
Construction job opportunities created as a result of the project are not expected to result in any substantial population growth in the area. The work requirements of most construction projects are highly specialized so that construction workers remain at a job site only for the timeframe during which their specific skills are needed. Additionally, the construction workers would likely be supplied from the region’s labor pool. Construction workers would not be likely to relocate their household as a consequence of working on the project, and as such, significant housing or population impacts would not result from construction of the project. Therefore, there would be no construction-related population growth impacts and no impact would occur.
According to the 2015-2023 Housing Element, the population of Half Moon Bay dropped from 11,842 to 11,228 between 2000 and 2011.64 U.S. Census data estimated populations of 11,324 in 2010 and 12,973 in 2018.65 The project would subdivide one existing medium-density residential lot to create three medium-density residential lots and construct two single-family homes in the city. There is an average of 2.8 persons per household in the city. Therefore, the addition of two single-family homes would add between five and six persons to the existing population of approximately 13,000, or approximately 0.05% of the population. The City General Plan Housing Element identifies a need for 121 above-moderate- income housing units in the period between 2014 and 2022. The project would provide two above- moderate housing units. According to Title 17 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, the project Applicants must apply for and obtain a residential dwelling unit allocation (Measure D) for each proposed dwelling unit. The applicant has obtained Measure D certificates for the project. Each year, the City may
64 City of Half Moon Bay. 2015. 2015-2023 Housing Element. Available at: https://www.half-moon- bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/186/2015-2023-Housing-Element-PDF. Accessed January 16, 2020. 65 U.S. Census. 2020. Quick Facts. Half Moon Bay, California. Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/halfmoonbaycitycalifornia/PST045218. Accessed January 16, 2020.
57 98 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
authorize allocations that would result in a growth rate of up to 1% in the city’s population as of the first of that year.66 The project would introduce up to approximately six new persons to the population and would comply with the 1% growth cap; therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in the area and no impact would occur.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project would create two new residential lots allowing for future construction of two single-family homes on parcels zoned for single-family residential land use. The project would not displace people or housing. No impact would occur.
2.15 Public Services
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
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: (a) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (b) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ (c) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ (e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
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 fire protection?
A significant impact may occur if the Coastside Fire Protection District (CFPD) could not adequately serve a project, and a new or physically altered fire station would be necessary.
The project area receives fire protection services from the CFPD, a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) agency. The CFPD has three fire stations, the nearest of which (Fire Station 40) is at 1911 Main Street, Half Moon Bay, approximately 0.23 mile southeast of the project site. Fire Station 40 is staffed with one fire captain and two fire apparatus engineers.67 Fire Station 40 can provide a
66 City of Half Moon Bay. 2009. Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. Title 17. Subdivisions.Chapter 17.06. Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/#!/HalfMoonBay17/HalfMoonBay1706.html#17.06. Accessed September 4, 2020. 67 Coastside Fire Protection. 2008. About us. Available at: https://www.coastsidefire.org/about-us Accessed September 11, 2020.
58 99 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
minimum response time of 2 minutes and maximum response time of 8 minutes to all portions of the city.68
As described in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, two single-single family residences would be expected to increase the city population by approximately six people. This increase would not substantially increase the demand for public services. The increase in two residences would not induce substantial demand for fire protection or emergency services. The project area is adequately served by existing fire stations that are meeting or exceeding their respective response times. Further, the single- family residences would also be built to meet applicable fire safety standards, including the CBC regulations. The CFPD is required to review all planning permit applications. The City has adopted development fees by ordinance that apply to subdivisions and new residential development. These fees support a variety of local services and government facilities. The project will pay all required development fees. Construction of each of the two single-family residences would adhere to all requirements of the CFPD. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant. b. 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 police protection?
A significant impact may occur if the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department), could not adequately serve a project, and a new or physically altered sheriff or police station would be necessary.
The project area receives law enforcement services from the Coastside Patrol Bureau of the Sheriff’s Department. The Coastside Patrol Bureau provides law enforcement services for over 60% of San Mateo County, including the city, has two substations located in Half Moon Bay and Moss Beach, and is staffed with 27 full-time Deputy Sheriff's, four Sergeants, and one Lieutenant, as well as two full-time Community Policing deputies. The Half Moon Bay Substation is located approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the project site.
As described in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, two single-family residences would be expected to increase the city population by approximately six people. This increase would not substantially increase the demand for public services, including police protection. The project area is adequately served by existing police stations. The City has adopted development fees by ordinance that apply to subdivisions and new residential development. These fees support a variety of local services and government facilities. The project will pay all required development fees. Therefore, impacts to police protection would be less than significant.
68 City of Half Moon Bay. 1991. City of Half Moon Bay General Plan, Safety Element, p. 34. Available at: https://www.half- moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/185/1991-Safety-Element-of-General-Plan-PDF. Accessed September 11, 2020.
59 100 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
c. 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 schools?
The project area is served by the Cabrillo Unified School District (CUSD). A significant impact may occur if the CUSD could not adequately serve a project, and a new or physically altered school or schools would be necessary.
The CUSD has four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, one alternative high school, and an adult education program. In the past 2 years, enrollment in the district as a whole has declined by approximately 200 students.69,70 The project area is in the service area for Hatch Elementary School, Cunha Middle School, and Half Moon Bay High School. Hatch Elementary School is in the process of being modernized and remodeled. The buildings housing grades 1 through 5 were completely renovated in 2018 and 2019, and a new kindergarten wing is in the process of construction. Cunha Middle School was recently remodeled and upgraded as well.
The project would construct two new single-family residences, which would likely introduce up to six people into the community. Of those six people, approximately three might be new students. Since the public school district in the project area has been experiencing declining student enrollment, the addition of up to three new students would not cause overcrowding or result in the need for new or improved schools. The City has adopted development fees by ordinance that apply to subdivisions and new residential development. These fees support a variety of local services and government facilities. The project will pay all required development fees. No impact would occur. d. 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 parks?
A significant impact may occur if the project would result in the need for new or improved parks.
Parks and recreation facilities that could be used by the residents of the project include parks operated by the City (the Coastal Trail, Frenchman’s Creek Park, Kehoe Park, Carter Park, Fernandez Park, Mac Dutra Plaza, Oak Avenue Park, Ocean View Park, Skate Park, and Smith Field), San Mateo County Parks Department (Pillar Point Bluff, Quarry Park, Mirada Surf, Moss Beach Park, Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, and Devil’s Slide Trail are located between Half Moon Bay and Montara, and Tunitas Creek Beach, Memorial Park, Pescadero Creek Park, and Sam McDonald Park are located south of the city),71 California Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks) (Half Moon Bay State Beach, which includes Dunes, Roosevelt, and Venice Beaches; Montara State Beach and Gray Whale Cove State Beach to the north; and Burleigh H. Murray Ranch, Cowell Ranch State Beach, Año Nuevo State Park,
69 Cabrillo Unified School District (CUSD). 2016. Audit Report, June 30, 2016. Available at: https://app.eduportal.com/documents/view/613450. Accessed September, 2020. 70 CUSD. 2019. Audit report, June 30, 2019. Available at: https://app.eduportal.com/documents/view/739216. Accessed September, 2020. 71 San Mateo County Parks Department. 2020. County Parks by Location webpage. Available at: https://parks.smcgov.org/county-parks. Accessed September 11, 2020.
60 101 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
and Bug Basin Redwoods State Park to the south),72 and Mid-Peninsula Open Space District (Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve, Skyline Ridge Preserve, and La Honda Creek Preserve on or near the coast).73
The City completed a Parks Master Plan in January 2019. The Master Plan provides planning for a 15-year period (2018 to 2033). The City currently provides approximately 5 acres of developed parks per 1,000 residents. This includes pocket and neighborhood parks and community and special parks. It does not include trails, county parks, natural open spaces, or beaches in the project area. The recommended standard identified in the Draft Plan Half Moon Bay policies (Local Coastal Access and Recreation chapter of the Land Use Plan and General Plan Healthy Community Element) is 5 acres per 1,000 people.74
The project would construct two new single-family residences, which would likely introduce up to six people into the community. The addition of up to six new people would not result in the need for new or improved parks. The City requires park impact fees to be paid with building permit issuance for development of new residences, further ensuring park operation funding. No impact would occur. e. 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 other public facilities?
A significant impact may occur if the project would result in the need for other new or improved public facilities.
Other public facilities include the Half Moon Bay Library, which is part of the San Mateo County Libraries system. The Half Moon Bay Library, rebuilt in 2018, is a 22,000-square-foot facility that serves a 270-square-mile area on the Coastside. The new library provides both physical and digital collections from the San Mateo County Libraries system, technology services including three-dimensional (3D) printing, free WiFi hotspots, multilingual collections, literacy services, online high school, and space for community programs and events.75
The project would construct two new single-family residences which would likely introduce up to six people into the community. The addition of up to six new people would not result in the need for new or improved library facilities. No impact would occur.
72 California State Parks. 2020. Find a California State Park webpage. Available at: https://www.parks.ca.gov/ParkIndex/. Accessed September 11, 2020. 73 Mid-Peninsula Open Space Trust. 2020. Find an Open Space Webpage. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/preserves. Accessed September 11. 2020. 74 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. Parks Master Plan. Available at: https://www.half-moon- bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2161/Final-Master-Plan_12419v6. Accessed September 11, 2020. 75 City of Half Moon Bay. 2020. Library Webpage. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/322/Library. Accessed January 27, 2020.
61 102 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
2.16 Recreation
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(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 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Evaluation
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?
A project would result in a significant impact to parks and recreation services if it would result in a significant increase in population from adding residential units. The project would create an additional two single-family homes on an existing residential street. As discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the addition of two single-family homes would add between five and six people to the Half Moon Bay community. The addition of up to six people would not increase park use or result in substantial deterioration of park facilities. The project would be required to pay development fees to support local parks prior to recording of the final map. No impact would occur. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The project would create an additional two single-family homes on an existing residential street. As discussed in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the addition of two single-family homes would add between five and six people to the Half Moon Bay area. No impact would occur.
62 103 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
2.17 Traffic and Circulation
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Environmental Evaluation
REGIONAL AND LOCAL ACCESS
Regional access is provided by Highway 1 located adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Seymour Street and Highway 1. Local access is provided by Seymour Street.
PUBLIC TRANSIT
The project site is served by San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) Bus Routes 17, 18, and 294, which all have stops approximately 0.23 mile northeast, at the corner of Main Street and Poplar Avenue, and 0.21 mile southeast, near the corner of Main Street and Higgins Canyon Road. The three bus routes offer connections to Linda Mar in the city of Pacifica (Route 17) and Hillsdale Caltrain Station in the city of San Mateo (Route 294). Route 18 is specifically designed for children traveling to and from school.
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRANSIT
The project site is 35 feet west of the Naomi Patridge Trail. This bicycle/pedestrian trail runs adjacent to Highway 1 on the west side and currently extends approximately 2.75 miles, from Ruisseau Francais Avenue in the north to Wavecrest Road in the south. An additional 0.25-mile extension runs from Ruisseau Francais Avenue north to Young Avenue, on the east side of Highway 1. The Naomi Patridge Trail is a Class 176 multi-use path between Ruisseau Francais Avenue and Highway 92, and between Kelly Avenue and Wavecrest Road. In addition, the project site is approximately 0.60 mile east of the Half Moon Bay Coastside Trail, which is one segment of the California Coastal Trail. The Half Moon Bay Coastside Trail is a paved, Class 1 multi-use path that extends from Seymour Bridge 4.7 miles north to Pillar Point Harbor. An additional, partially paved segment of the trail extends approximately 2 miles
76 Multi‐Use Path (Class I): An off‐street bike path that provides a separate right‐of‐ way for two‐way travel by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non‐motorized users. Multi‐use paths are typically paved but can also use decomposed granite material or natural materials where appropriate.
63 104 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
south from Seymour Bridge to the Ritz Carlton Hotel. In the south it connects to the Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail, an additional 3.6-mile segment of the California Coastal Trail.77 a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Highways 1 and 92 are the only roads that provide connections to other parts of the County. Most neighborhoods connect to Highway 1, but do not connect with each other. Traffic on both major roads can back up during peak hours, including rush hours on weekday and from tourist traffic on weekends.
Under the 2019 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, changes to Levels of Service (LOS) are no longer identified as an impact under CEQA. The new 2019 CEQA Guidelines require analysis of impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a result of a project. VMT is the amount and distance of automobile traffic attributable to a project. Under the new CEQA Guidelines, projects that would generate or attract fewer than 110 vehicle trips per day are assumed to cause less than significant impacts to transportation. The project would construct two single-family residences in an existing neighborhood, which would not generate more than 110 vehicle trips per day. The project is an infill development project located in an existing residential neighborhood, is adjacent to the existing Naomi Patridge Trail, and within 0.5 mile of a bus stop. Therefore, the project would not conflict any plan, ordinance or policy related to transportation and no impact would occur.
The following discussion of LOS impacts is no longer a CEQA issue but is limited to General Plan policy consistency. The City General Plan Circulation Element identifies Levels of Service (LOS) for intersections close to the project. The intersections of Highway 1 with Poplar Street (2 blocks north of the project with traffic light) and Seymour Street both received LOS A ratings (meaning they had minimal traffic delays of between 0.8 and 5.1 minutes) in 2010. However, the Circulation Element projects that by 2035, Poplar Street would have an LOS F rating on a weekday PM peak hour, with 238-minute delays, if no traffic improvements are made. Seymour Street would maintain an LOS A rating during weekday peak hours but would have an LOS F rating for the Saturday midday peak hour with waits of over 100 minutes.
The Circulation Element has identified goals and policies to improve the traffic network, including a citywide traffic mitigation fee for new development. The traffic mitigation fees are part of the development impact fees required for new residential development per the City’s adopted Master Fee Schedule.78
Project construction would result in vehicle worker trips, haul trips, and vendor trips. The demolition waste could generate a total of about 16 haul trips over the construction period. The increase in traffic as a result of worker and haul trips would negligibly increase traffic at nearby traffic intersections and roadway segments, and would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness. In addition, haul and vendor trips would primarily occur during off-peak hours (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.
Operation of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic. The project would construct two new medium-density, single-family residential homes on the north side of an existing residential street. The homes would be approximately 1 mile from the primary shopping centers, between 0.5 mile and 1 mile from schools, and 0.5 mile from the downtown area. The two homes would cause a
77 Peninsula Open Space Trust. 2020. Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail webpage. Available at: https://openspacetrust.org/hike/cowell-purisima-trail/. Accessed September 14, 2020. 78 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. City of Half Moon Bay Master Fee Schedule. Other Fees, Charges & Services. FY 19-20. Available at: https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2232/FY2019-20-Master-Fee-Schedule-FINAL. Accessed September 14, 2020.
64 105 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
negligible increase in VMT on the existing roadway system. Impacts related to the performance of the circulation system would be less than significant. The project would not conflict with any program addressing the circulation system.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 includes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Under Subdivision (b), for land use projects:
Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
The project site is 0.15 mile from a SamTrans bus stop at the corner of Main Street and Kelly Avenue. This bus stop serves SamTrans Routes 17, 18, and 294. In addition to being within 0.15 mile of transit stops, the project site is approximately 35 feet west of the Naomi Patridge Trail, which provides opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian transit along the Highway 1 corridor, and 0.6 mile from the Half Moon Bay Coastside Trail.
In San Mateo County, the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) offers a wide array of commuter incentives and provides countywide Transit Demand Management services to employers and employees. The Alliance sponsors carpool matching, carpool and vanpool incentives, commuter shuttles, bicycle parking subsidies, bicycle and pedestrian safety workshops, and other services. In Half Moon Bay, the Alliance offers programs for emergency rides home, vanpool incentives, carpool incentives, carpool to college and school, bicycle parking and safety incentives, shuttles, and commuter benefits consulting.
Approximately 64% of Half Moon Bay residents commute more than 15 minutes to work, and approximately one-fifth commute more than 45 minutes.79 However, the project would construct two single-family homes in an established residential neighborhood within 0.15 mile of a transit stop. This is an infill development project which would be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). No impact would occur.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The project does not include any design features that would increase hazards. The project would construct two single-family houses in an existing residential neighborhood. The project does not include sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses. No impact related to project design would occur.
The project would extend subsurface utilities (i.e., water, sewer, storm drains, gas, and electrical) to two new residences. Construction across Seymour Street would present a temporary hazard to vehicular traffic. The project would be required to obtain encroachment permits from the City for any utility work in Seymour Street. The encroachment application would include, but not be limited to, engineering plans for the new sewer and water lines, the location of all subsurface high priority utilities in the vicinity of the
79 City of Half Moon Bay. 2015. Plan Half Moon Bay. Housing Element 2015-2023. Pg. 1-5. Available at: https://www.half- moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/186/2015-2023-Housing-Element-PDF. Accessed January 23, 2020.
65 106 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses installation, traffic control/traffic management plans for Seymour Street, and soil and geology reports. Compliance with encroachment permit conditions and the approved traffic control plan would reduce potentially significant impacts related to traffic hazards in the Seymour Street corridor to a less-than- significant level. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The project would construct two single-family homes in an existing residential neighborhood. Therefore, the project does not have any elements that would result in inadequate emergency service, and no impact would occur.
2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
66 107 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Environmental Evaluation
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
A cultural resource records search was not conducted for the project because of the low potential to encounter tribal cultural resources given the scope of project activities and minimal ground disturbance. The City has contacted tribes, on previous occasions, that have traditional and cultural ties to the region, as identified by the NAHC. To date, these tribes have not responded to these outreach efforts or requested formal notification from the City of proposed CEQA projects pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1. As a result, the City is not obligated to provide notification of the project, and the City has met its obligations under Assembly Bill 52.80
In the event that objects or artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources are encountered during the course of the project, construction activities would temporarily cease on the project site until the potential tribal cultural resources are properly assessed pursuant to PRC Section 21074 (a)(2). In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a would include a description of potential cultural resources in the environmental awareness training, and Mitigation Measures CUL-1 (exposure of cultural resources) and CUL-2 (exposure of human remains) would reduce impacts related to encountering previously unidentified tribal resources to a less than significant level. Compliance with these regulatory compliance measures would ensure the project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, and this potentially significant impact would be reduced to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
TRI-1 In the event that objects or artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources are encountered during the course of the project, all such activities shall temporarily cease on the project site until the potential tribal cultural resources are properly assessed and treated pursuant to PRC Section 21074 (a)(2).
80 Cozzolino 2020.
67 108 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
2.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ provider which 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? (d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (e) Comply with federal, state, and local management ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Evaluation a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
WATER
Water for the project is supplied by the CCWD. The CCWD obtains its water supply from four sources. Water contained in Pilarcitos Lake and Crystal Springs Reservoir is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). Local water supplies are drawn from Pilarcitos Well Field and the Denniston Project (well and surface water). The CCWD serves 18,776 people in a 14-square-mile area. They have an average demand of 1.85 million gallons per day (MGD).81 The CCWD has an Individual Supply Guarantee of 2.18 MGD, or approximately 800 million gallons per year, from the SFPUC. In addition to the water from the SFPUC, CCWD obtains approximately 0.69 MGD from local sources during a non-drought year.82 Per capita use in the district is approximately 57 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) for residential uses and 110 gpcpd for gross water uses.
81 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency. 2020. Coastside County Water District Service Area Webpage. Available at: http://bawsca.org/members/profiles/coastside. Accessed January 27, 2020. 82 CCWD. 2015. 2015 Urban Water Master Plan. Pp. 6-1 to 6-10. Available at: http://www.coastsidewater.org/reports_and_studies/2015-UWMP.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2020.
68 109 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
The project would construct two single-family homes in an existing residential neighborhood. Residential water use in the project area is estimated at approximately 57 gallons per day (gpd). Therefore, the addition of approximately six people would result in approximately 342 gpd of additional water use, or 0.02% of the average water demand of 1.85 MGD. The CCWD has access to a supply of up to 2.87 MGD (2.18 MGD from the SFPUC plus 0.69 MGD from local sources), and a treatment capacity of 5.5 MGD. Therefore, the project would not result in the need for expanded water treatment facilities and no impact would occur.
The residence at 555 Seymour is served by an existing water main under Seymour Street. The water line would be extended within the street right of way to the two new lots. There is currently a water connection to 555 Seymour Street, and there are two uninstalled water service connections assigned to 565 and 575 Seymour Street. Water laterals totaling approximately 250 feet would need to be extended to serve 565 and 575 Seymour Street. There are regulations requiring specific separation distances between water and sewer lines. This analysis assumes that the sewer lines would access the properties from an easement to the north of both property lines. and that adequate space would be maintained to provide separation for the water and sewer lines. Therefore, there would be adequate space for new water laterals and no impact would occur.
WASTEWATER
Wastewater collection and treatment is provided by SAM. SAM receives average dry weather flow of approximately 1.5 MGD. The plant has capacity to treat up to 4 MGD in average dry weather flow and 15 MGD in peak wet weather flow (which includes infiltration of stormwater). The plant has not experienced flows that reached or exceeded maximum peak wet weather capacity since its expansion in the late 1990s.83
The two new single-family homes would be required to connect to the municipal wastewater system. Residential wastewater production is estimated at 95% of water use. Therefore, the two new single-family homes would be likely to generate approximately 325 gpd of wastewater, or less than 0.01% of SAM’s treatment capacity. The SAM wastewater treatment plant has a current capacity of 4.0 MGD average dry weather flow, and currently receives approximately 1.5 MGD of wastewater average dry weather flow; therefore, the project would not result in the need for expanded wastewater treatment facilities and no impact would occur.
There are three existing sewer lines in the vicinity of the project area. As described in Section 1.5, Proposed Project, Utilities, a sewer line would be extended from the existing line in Seymour Street. There is also an unused sewer easement that extends in an east–west direction, north of the existing parcels. Under the proposed project, both residences would receive a sewer connection from the sewer line in Seymour Street via the easement to the north. The sewer line in Seymour Street would have adequate capacity to support the project and no impacts to sewer capacity would occur.
All sewer line extensions would be required to implement an erosion/pollution control plan under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit84 and the SMCWSPPP, as discussed in Section 2.10(a), Hydrology and Water Quality. Impacts to the Seymour Ditch from the sewer line extension would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by Mitigation Measure BIO-4, as discussed in Section 2.4(c)
83 Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM). 2019. Sewer System Management plan. Available at: https://samcleanswater.org/vertical/sites/%7B1307B359-C05A-436D-AC1C- 9EB8D6FFB4A3%7D/uploads/Item_4D_Attachment_B_SSMP_2019(2).pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 84 San Francisco RWQCB. 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049. NPDES Permit NO. CAS612008. Available at: https://www.smcsustainability.org/download/energy-water/stormwater/R2-2015-0049.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020.
69 110 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Biological Resources. Therefore, the potential for any impacts from extending the sewer under existing paved areas are less than significant, and the potential for any impacts for extending the sewer within the project area are less than significant with mitigation incorporated herein.
Each component of the project would be required to implement an erosion/pollution control plan under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit85 and the SMCWSPPP.86 Each erosion/pollution control plan must include site-specific BMPs that are designed to prevent runoff from construction areas to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality during project construction. The plan would also include design elements and BMPs for construction areas such as fueling and equipment washing areas, and trash and hazardous material storage areas. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.
STORMWATER
Stormwater conveyances are maintained by the City Public Works Department. Stormwater in the project area drains to Seymour Street. Stormwater from Seymour Street enters the open space area west of Seymour Street by overland flow and either percolates into the groundwater or may enter the Seymour Ditch, which drains west and south toward the Pacific Ocean. A minimal amount of stormwater enters Seymour Ditch from Seymour Street.
There are no downstream flooding issues with stormwater in the Seymour Ditch, however recent erosion and coastal bluff retreat has occurred where Seymour Ditch enters the Pacific Ocean. The project would include onsite stormwater detention facilities adequate for a 10-year, 2-hour storm event. Excess stormwater may be directed to the existing detention basin at 555 Seymour Street or may enter Seymour Street. Overland flow from Seymour Street drains to the North Wavecrest parcel west of Seymour Street and either percolates into the ground or may enter Seymour Ditch. The amount of stormwater that enters Seymour Ditch from Seymour Street is small. Therefore, stormwater drainage would not result in the need for expanded stormwater facilities. This impact would be less than significant. Under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, the proposed storm water retention systems must be sized to retain 80% of wet weather flows. Homeowners would be required to implement and maintain functional stormwater retention systems. Implementation of required stormwater system plans would further reduce the less than significant operational impacts on storm drainage infrastructure. The project would not result in an increase in peak wet weather runoff or create the need for new or expanded storm drainage infrastructure. No impact would occur.
GAS AND ELECTRICITY
Gas and electrical services are provided to the project area by PG&E and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE). The proposed single-family residences would receive gas and electric service from PG&E and PCE. The project would require an extension of the gas main and include construction of lateral connections to the gas main and 12-kilovolt (kV) electrical line, likely under Seymour Street. Utility plans have not been provided at this time but would be in compliance with all City regulations.
85 San Francisco RWQCB. 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Order No. R2-2015-0049. NPDES Permit NO. CAS612008. Available at: https://www.smcsustainability.org/download/energy-water/stormwater/R2-2015-0049.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 86 County of San Mateo. 2020. San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Construction Webpage. Available at: https://www.flowstobay.org/construction. Accessed September 14, 2020.
70 111 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
One PCE residential customer uses approximately 3,105 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in a year, which is 0.001% of average retail sales. 87 PG&E has over 260,000 natural gas customers in San Mateo County. New construction would have to meet 2019 CBC, Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Consequently, energy efficiency would exceed that of many existing homes. The addition of two households, or less than 0.01%, to PG&E’s customer base would have a vanishingly small effect on natural gas services. The addition of two homes would not result in a need for expanded electricity or gas infrastructure. This impact would be less than significant.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Comcast is the primary provider of cable television services in the area. Internet services are offered by AT&T, Comcast Xfinity, Viasat, HughesNet, Coastside.net, and Skyline Broadband Service. Wireless providers include Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile. The addition of two households, to the customer bases of local telecommunications companies would have a vanishingly small effect on telecommunications services. The addition of two homes would not result in a need for expanded telecommunications infrastructure. This impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
As required by the DWR, CCWD has analyzed the long-term reliability and vulnerability of their water supplies and developed a combination of supply alternatives and conservation planning efforts to meet the water supply needs of their customers. CCWD has developed water supply estimates for normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios. Table 2.19-1, CCWD Water Supply and Demand Estimates for Multiple Dry Years, shows the water balance for the first 3 years of a multiple dry year sequence. As shown in Table 2.19-1, with a reduction in demands as a result of water conservation during multiple dry years, CCWD’s multiple dry year supplies are adequate to meet projected multiple dry year demand88
The project would construct two new single-family residences. Since the project includes infill development in an existing residential neighborhood, population from these residences has been accounted for in the City’s and CCWD’s planning. CCWD would have sufficient water to meet the needs of the project. This impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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?
As discussed under 2.19(a), SAM receives average dry weather flow of approximately 1.5 MGD and has a wastewater treatment plant capacity of up to 4 MGD in average dry weather flow.89 The two new single-family homes would be likely to generate approximately 325 gpd of wastewater, or less than 0.001% of SAM’s treatment capacity. Therefore, SAM has adequate capacity to serve the project. No impact would occur.
87 Peninsula Clean Energy. 2017. PCE Integrated Resource Plan. Available at: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/01/PCE-FINAL-2017-IRP-Updated.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 88 CCWD. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: http://www.coastsidewater.org/reports_and_studies/2015- UWMP.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 89 SAM. 2019. Sewer System Management plan. Available at: https://samcleanswater.org/vertical/sites/%7B1307B359-C05A- 436D-AC1C-9EB8D6FFB4A3%7D/uploads/Item_4D_Attachment_B_SSMP_2019(2).pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020.
71 112 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Table 2-1. CCWD Water Supply and Demand Estimates for Multiple Dry Years
Drought Year Supply/Demand Totals1 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
First Year Supply Totals 787 787 787 787 787 Demand Totals 671 661 648 669 692 Difference 116 126 139 118 95 Second Year Supply Totals 665 665 665 665 665 Demand Totals 644 634 622 642 665 Difference 21 31 43 23 0 Third Year Supply Totals 637 637 637 637 637 Demand Totals 617 608 596 615 637 Difference 20 29 41 22 0
1 All numbers are in million gallons per year. Source: CCWD 2016, Table 7-7. Retail: Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (DWR Table 7-4).
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Solid waste pick-up is provided to the project area and City by Republic Services, which provides pickup of residential and commercial garbage, recyclable material, and organic waste, as well as motor oil, oil filters, and batteries. They also have drop-off locations for electronic waste and hazardous materials, including medications and paint.90
Solid waste goes to the Corinda Los Trancos Ox Mountain Landfill for recycling, composting, and disposal. The Corinda Los Trancos Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill is permitted to receive 3,598 tons of waste per day and has an anticipated closure date of 2034.91 In the second quarter of 2019, the landfill received an average of 160,253 tons of solid waste (approximately 1,780 tons per day or 49% of its permitted throughput).
CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the project would require soils excavation and grading resulting in approximately 40 cubic yards of excavation of soil to be hauled off-site for disposal. The project Applicants would be required to prepare and submit a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan to the City for review and approval. Under the plan, the project Applicants shall be required to identify types and amounts of materials that could feasibly be reused, salvaged, or recycled, and shall note the procedures intended to be used. The Waste Management Plan must be approved by the City prior to project construction92. Therefore, impacts related to construction would be less than significant.
90 City of Half Moon Bay. 2020. Garbage/Recycling Services webpage. Available at: https://www.half-moon- bay.ca.us/479/GarbageRecycling-Services. Accessed January 28, 2020. 91 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2017. SWIS Facility Detail. Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-0002/Detail. Accessed January 28, 2020. 92 City of Half Moon Bay. 2019. Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. Chapter 14.50. Requirement for Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/HalfMoonBay/#!/HalfMoonBay14/HalfMoonBay1450.html#14.50. Accessed January 28, 2020.
72 113 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
In addition to excavated soils, construction of the single-family residences would generate construction waste. Construction of a 2,000-square-foot residence generates approximately 50 cubic yards of waste. Estimated conservatively, construction of up to 7,863 square feet (4,340 square feet and 3,523 square feet, respectively at 565 and 575 Seymour Street) of single-family residential development would generate approximately 197 cubic yards of construction waste. Under the required Waste Management Plan, the project Applicants would be required to either reuse or divert construction debris as feasible. The Waste Management Plan must be approved by the City prior to project construction.
The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill has a remaining capacity of approximately 45 million cubic yards and is expected to operate until 2034.93 Ox Mountain would accept clean fill for daily cover. The landfill would have adequate capacity to serve the construction phase of the project, because the construction phase of the project would be temporary and would generate a limited amount of solid waste. Development of the required Waste Management Plan would further reduce this less-than-significant impact.
OPERATION
The average single-family residence generates approximately 12.23 pounds of waste per household per day, and this number includes waste for disposal, recycling, and composting.94 Each household would generate approximately 4,465 pounds (2.23 tons) per year, which is less than 0.001% of current volumes in Corinda Los Trancos Landfill. The proposed residences would not generate solid waste in excess of State and local standards or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. This impact would be less than significant. e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project Applicants would each be required to comply with all federal, state, and local ordinances for water, energy, and waste reduction and management, including, but not limited to, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) requirements; City Municipal Code Chapter 14.50, Requirement for Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling; Waste Management Plan for construction debris; and SMCSWPPP. Therefore, the project would comply with all federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations. No impact would occur.
2.20 Wildfire
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ plan or emergency evacuation plan?
93 CalRecycle. 2017. SWIS Facility Detail. Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/41-AA-0002/Detail. Accessed September 14, 2020. 94 City of Los Angeles. 2006. City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide. Available at: http://planning.lacity.org/Documents/MajorProjects/CEQAThresholdsGuide.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020.
73 114 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Environmental Evaluation a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project area is located on the flat coastal plain and is not located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.95 The closest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the project site, in the hilly terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains.96 However, the project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI).97 The project would comply with all CFPD regulations. The construction of two residences in an established neighborhood would not impair an emergency response plan. Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and would pose a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. The project site is located on the flat coastal plain and is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). 98 . The closest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the project site, in the hilly terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains.99 The WUI area is best described as a wildland-urban intermix with homes scattered amongst wildland fuels. However, it is an infill
95 CAL FIRE. 2007. Very High Fire Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Half Moon Bay. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5983/half_moon_bay.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 96 Cal FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6802/fhszs_map41.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 97 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2020. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat Interactive Map. Available at: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb&layerI d=0. Accessed October 6, 2020. 98 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Very High Fire Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Half Moon Bay. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5983/half_moon_bay.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2020. 99 CAL FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6802/fhszs_map41.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2020.
74 115 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
development project and will comply with all CFPD requirements to reduce risks, therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The project area is located on the flat coastal plain and is not located in a SRA or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.100 The closest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the project site, in the hilly terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains.101 The project is not located on a slope and prevailing winds tend to blow from the Pacific Ocean eastward. However, the project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI).102 The project site is located within a substantially developed area with existing infrastructure, including fire hydrants. It is approximately 1,500 ft from a fire station and the project has been reviewed by Coastside Fire Protection District (CFPD) staff and will be required to comply with CFPD requirements prior to building occupancy. Although the project could expose people or structures to a risk of wildland fire, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, thereby exposing people to pollutant risks from a wildfire. This impact would be less than significant.
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
The project area is located on the flat coastal plain and is not located in a SRA or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.103 The closest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the project site, in the hilly terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains.104 The project is located on an existing residential street. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure such as roads or fuel breaks. The CFPD may require the installation of new fire hydrants and other improvements prior to occupancy as part of routine building permit review. The project would extend electricity and gas connections from existing electricity and gas lines within 100 feet of the project area. The project would not extend new large gas mains or high-voltage transmission lines. No impact would occur.
100 CAL FIRE. 2007. Very High Fire Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Half Moon Bay. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5983/half_moon_bay.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 101 Cal FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6802/fhszs_map41.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 102 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2020. Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Threat Interactive Map. Available at: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=d45bf08448354073a26675776f2d09cb&layerI d=0. Accessed October 6, 2020. 103 CAL FIRE. 2007. Very High Fire Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Half Moon Bay. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5983/half_moon_bay.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 104 Cal FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6802/fhszs_map41.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020.
75 116 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The project area is located on the flat coastal plain and is not located in a SRA or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.105 The closest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is approximately 0.75 mile northeast of the project site, in the hilly terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains.106 Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of post-fire instability including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. No impact would occur.
2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmental Issues Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(a) Does the project have the potential to substantially ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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, substantially 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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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)? (c) Does the project have environmental effects which ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Environmental Evaluation 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?
The project site is located in a developed residential area of the city on existing residential lots. There are no known historic resources in the project area and Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would protect previously
105 CAL FIRE. 2007. Very High Fire Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Half Moon Bay. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5983/half_moon_bay.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020. 106 Cal FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6802/fhszs_map41.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2020.
76 117 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist and Responses
undiscovered historical resources; therefore, the project would have no impact on historic resources. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TRI-1. As described in this document, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce or threaten any fish or wildlife species (endangered or otherwise), or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history. Therefore, impacts from the project would be less than significant. b. 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?
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 identified for impacts to biological resources would fully mitigate all potential significant biological impacts to a less-than-significant level. All cumulative impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic are less than significant. Given the size of the project and its impacts and mitigation measures, the incremental effects of the two proposed single-family residences on existing legal lots zoned for residential use are not considerable when considered in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on these areas. Impacts are less than significant. c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
A significant impact may occur if a project has the potential to result in significant impacts, as discussed in the previous sections. As described throughout this environmental impact analysis, with implementation of mitigation measures (where applicable) the project would not result in any significant impacts. Thus, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings and impacts would be less than significant.
77 118 Seymour Street Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Chapter 3 References and Report Preparation
CHAPTER 3. PREPARERS OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3.1 Lead Agency City of Half Moon Bay Planning Division 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Douglas Garrison
3.2 Project Applicant 555 Coastside Estates, LLC.
3.3 Environmental Consultants (CEQA) SWCA Environmental Consultants 60 Stone Pine Road Suite 100 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Lincoln Allen, Project Manager/Senior Biologist Juliet Bolding, Planner Dean Lauritzen, Biologist Jamie Jones, Senior Technical Editor
78 119
APPENDIX A
A1. Biological Resources Evaluation for 555 Seymour Street (September 2019)
A2. Biological Resources Evaluation for 546 Magnolia Street (June 2019)
A3. Addendum to the Biological Resources Evaluation for 564 Magnolia Street (January 30, 2020)
A4. Special Status Plant Survey Results for the Magnolia Street Project and 555 Seymour Street Project (March 25, 2020)
120
121
APPENDIX A1
Biological Resources Evaluation for the 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California
122
123
Biological Resource Evaluation for the 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California
SEPTEMBER 2019
PREPARED FOR City of Half Moon Bay
PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants
124
125
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION FOR THE 555 SEYMOUR STREET PROJECT, HALF MOON BAY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, California 94019 Attn: Douglas Garrison, Senior Planner
Prepared by Dean Lauritzen, Biologist SWCA Environmental Consultants 60 Stone Pine Road, Suite 100 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 (650) 440-4160 www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 57382
September 2019
126
127 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared this Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) in support of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the proposed addition of single-family residences located at 555 Seymour Street in the city of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (project).
This BRE documents the existing environmental setting for the project and the biological study area (BSA) (which includes the property boundary plus a 200-foot buffer). SWCA conducted a desktop review and field survey for sensitive biological resources with the potential to occur in the BSA, and to identify activities that may impact a Coastal Resource Areas (CRA), as defined by the City of Half Moon Bay Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, this BRE provides a list of recommended avoidance and minimization measures designed to prevent the project from having a potentially significant biological impact.
Based on the results of the literature review and field survey, the BSA contains: • potential suitable habitat for several nesting migratory birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; • potential suitable dispersal and estivation habitat for two federally or state listed wildlife species (California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii] and San Francisco garter snake [Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia]); • potential suitable over-wintering habitat for one federal candidate species (monarch butterfly [Danaus plexippus]); • potential suitable habitat for a California Native Plant Society rank 1B.2 plant (fragrant fritillary [Fritillaria liliacea]); • two intermittent drainage channels that may be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction; • a drainage swale that may be subject to California Coastal Commission jurisdiction; and • CRAs, including sensitive habitat areas.
No special-status plant or animal species were observed during the survey, although suitable habitat for the above mentioned species was observed in the BSA. The project is located approximately 125 feet south of a potentially jurisdictional water feature and approximately 41 feet north of a second potentially jurisdictional water feature; however, no CRAs associated with these features were identified in the BSA.
i 128 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
ii 129 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...... i 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of Biological Resource Evaluation ...... 1 1.2 Project Location and Description ...... 1 2 Regulatory Background ...... 1 2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 1 2.2 California Endangered Species Act ...... 3 2.3 California Coastal Act and Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program ...... 3 3 Methodology ...... 3 3.1 Desktop Review and Literature Research ...... 3 3.2 Field Survey ...... 4 4 Results...... 6 4.1 Vegetation and Habitat Types ...... 6 4.1.1 Non-native Grassland ...... 6 4.2 Sensitive Resources ...... 8 4.2.1 Special-Status Species ...... 8 4.2.2 Nesting Migratory Passerine Birds and Raptors ...... 10 4.2.3 Wildlife Habitats ...... 10 4.2.4 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Waters of the U.S...... 10 4.2.5 Coastal Resource Areas ...... 11 5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...... 12 6 References ...... 15
Appendices
Appendix A. Photo Documentation Appendix B. USFWS Records Results Appendix C. CNDDB and CNPS Record List and Consideration for Potential Occurrence in the Biological Study Area Appendix D. Species Observed During the Field Survey Appendix E. Special-Status Species Records
Figures
Figure 1. Project vicinity map...... 2 Figure 2. Project location map and biological study area (yellow-dashed line)...... 5 Figure 3. Vegetation community map...... 7
iii 130 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
iv 131 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Biological Resource Evaluation
This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) has been prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) at the request of the City of Half Moon Bay (City). The intent of this report is to identify sensitive biological resources in the biological study area (BSA), and to provide recommendations that will prevent project activities from resulting in adverse effects to special-status species, riparian habitats, sensitive communities, federally protected wetlands, or wildlife movement corridors. The intent of this report is also to identify activities that may impact a Coastal Resource Area (CRA) per the City’s Zoning Code (City Code; City of Half Moon Bay 2018) and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP; City of Half Moon Bay 1993) for the proposed development of single-family residences located at 555 Seymour Street in Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (project). This report includes the results from a desktop review, literature search, and a field survey of the project area including areas within a 200-foot buffer, referred to hereafter as the BSA.
1.2 Project Location and Description
The project includes construction of new single-story single-family residences at 555 Seymour Street. The project may require the removal of eucalyptus tree branches overhanging the project area at the northeast portion of the property. The project is located on a marine terrace approximately 70–90 feet above mean sea level, and approximately 0.6 mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The project is surrounded by a densely developed residential community to the north, agricultural land to the south, Highway 1 to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west (Figure 1). Per the project site plan, the proposed project area includes an approximately one-acre parcel that comprises six lots. Photographs of the project area are included in Appendix A.
2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and prevents the unlawful “take” of listed fish, wildlife, and plant species. Section 9(a)(1)(B) specifically states “take” of species listed as threatened or endangered is unlawful. “Take” is defined as any action that would harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, shoot, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species. Section 10 of the FESA allows USFWS to issue incidental take permits if take of a listed species may occur in the course of otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires a Habitat Conservation Plan for an incidental take permit on non-federal lands.
1 132 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
2 133 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
2.2 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA) and the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA) ensure legal protection for plants listed as rare or endangered, and wildlife listed as threatened or endangered. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities that may result in the “take” of such species. Take of state-listed species would require a Section 2081 incidental take permit from CDFW. This process requires submittal of a sensitive species study and permit application package to CDFW. If CDFW concurs that impacts to a state-listed species would likely occur as a result of a proposed project, alternatives and measures to avoid or reduce the impacts must be identified in a Section 2081 permit to allow for incidental take authorization. CDFW may also include compensatory mitigation (mitigation/conservation bank) requirements for impacts to habitat for listed plants and wildlife.
2.3 California Coastal Act and Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (CCA) governs the decisions made by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) regarding issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, water quality, commercial fisheries, and development within the California coastal zone. Development within the coastal zone would require either a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) or CDP Exemption from the CCC or from a local government with a CCC-certified Local Coastal Program.
The City’s Local Coastal Program has been developed in compliance with the CCA and is guided by the City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of Half Moon Bay 1993). In accordance with the City Zoning Code Section 18.380 and 18.38.035, Coastal Resource Conservation Standards (City of Half Moon Bay 2018), SWCA conducted the biological resource survey and prepared this BRE to identify sensitive biological resources in the BSA, including CRAs. As defined by Section 18.38.020 of the City Code, CRAs may include the following resources: (1) sensitive habitats including sand dunes, marine habitats, sea cliffs, riparian areas, wetlands, coastal tidelands and marshes, lakes and ponds, adjacent shore habitats, coastal and offshore areas containing breeding and/or nesting sites or used by migratory and resident water-associated birds for resting and feeding, areas used for scientific study and research concerning fish and wildlife, existing game or wildlife refuges and reserves, habitats containing or supporting unique species or any rare and endangered species defined by the State Fish and Game Commission, rocky intertidal zones, and coastal scrub community associated with coastal bluffs and gullies; (2) riparian area and corridors; (3) bluff, cliffs, and sea-cliffs; (4) wild strawberry habitat; (5) wetlands; and (6) archaeological resources.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Desktop Review and Literature Research
SWCA performed a literature review to gain familiarity with the project area and to identify potential sensitive biological features, including CRAs, flora and fauna species, and wetlands that have the potential to occur in the BSA (Figure 2). The review consisted of a records search of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2019), the USFWS online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) species list system (USFWS 2019b) (Appendix B), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2019a) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Half Moon Bay and Montara Mountain 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle
3 134 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation maps. The CNDDB search was further refined to a five-mile area surrounding the project. The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2019a) was queried to identify critical habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species near the BSA. SWCA biologists also reviewed Calflora maps of listed species (Calflora 2019) and compared them against the results of the CNDDB and CNPS searches. All of the listed species and habitats found in the literature review were compiled into a table for use during the field survey (Appendix C), as described in Section 3.2 below.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for San Mateo County (NRCS 2019), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database (USFWS 2019c), USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2019), and aerial imagery were also reviewed to provide additional information for soils and potential wetlands known to occur in the BSA. Literature pertaining to potential sensitive natural resources and pertinent zoning and land use documents were studied to determine the classification of CRAs as well as the compliance requirements for the project (City of Half Moon Bay 1993, 2018).
3.2 Field Survey
A field survey was conducted on August 15 and August 20, 2019 by SWCA biologists Erich Schickenberg, Lincoln Allen, and Dean Lauritzen. The survey included walking transects that covered the project’s property boundary as well as the surrounding 200-foot buffer (see Figure 2). The surveyors assessed the BSA for its potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species, potential wetland features, habitat types, wildlife movement corridors, and indications of wildlife breeding activities. No formal wetland delineation was conducted during the field survey. The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012) was referenced to identify plant species. Project footprints and construction methods were considered to determine whether they could impact a CRA. A list of species observed during the survey is included in Appendix D.
4 135 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure 2. Project location map and biological study area (yellow-dashed line).
5 136 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
4 RESULTS
4.1 Vegetation and Habitat Types
The BSA consists of paved roadways, a residential community, non-native grassland (within both the project area and the agricultural field to the south) and an undeveloped eucalyptus forest. In total, two dominant vegetation communities, eucalyptus tree forest and non-native grassland, were mapped in the BSA (Figure 3) and were defined according to Manual of California Vegetation Online (CNPS 2019b).
Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) forests consist of dense stands of non-native, invasive eucalyptus trees, and are usually devoid of an understory with the exception of a few hardy grasses. Stands generally range from 30 to 55 meters (98 to 180 feet) high and are frequently found in cooler coastal areas and along stream courses. The eucalyptus forest within the BSA was located immediately north of the project area. However, some eucalyptus tree branches were observed overhanging the north edge of the project area. The eucalyptus habitat contains an understory of non-native annual grasses and herbs including slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and cut-leafed geranium (Geranium dissectum).
4.1.1 Non-native Grassland
Non-native grassland may include a composition of both exotic and native grasses in association with native annual forbs (wildflowers). Germination occurs with the onset of late fall rains, with growth, flowering, and seed-set occurring from winter through spring. With a few exceptions, the plants are dead through the summer-fall dry season, persisting only as seeds (Holland 1986). Common elements include slender wild oat, ripgut brome, Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), cut-leafed geranium (Geranium dissectum), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus).
Non-native grassland mixed with interspersed ornamental vegetation occurs within the project area. Additionally, at the time of the survey non-native grassland occurred within the mowed agricultural field to the south of the project (i.e., south of Seymour Street).
6 137 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure 3. Vegetation community map.
7 138 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
4.2 Sensitive Resources 4.2.1 Special-Status Species
4.2.1.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
No federally, state-, or CNPS-listed species were observed in the BSA during the field survey. A desktop review (CNPS and CNDDB) produced a total of 47 special-status plant species (including federally and state-listed species and CNPS 1 and 2 ranked species [Appendix E]), which have the potential to occur in the BSA. A description of the special-status species and their potential to occur is included in Appendix C. Of the 47 special-status species that were reviewed, one CNPS-listed plant species, fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea; CNPS 1B.2), was determined to have potential to occur in the BSA. There is low potential for fragrant fritillary to occur within the non-native grassland area in the BSA, however the field survey was conducted outside of the appropriate blooming period for this species (February through April) (CNPS 2019a). With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, including a preconstruction survey for fragrant fritillary during the appropriate blooming period, no adverse effects to special-status plants are expected to occur as a result of the project.
No natural communities of concern were identified in the BSA. The field survey revealed a landscape dominated by non-native grassland, urban development, agriculture, and eucalyptus tree forest. The dominant plant species observed within the property boundaries (i.e., the proposed work area) included Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), wild oat (Avena barbata), and kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum). Several ornamental shrubs and trees were noted at the south side of the property (Photo A-4).
4.2.1.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE
No federal, state, or sensitive animal species were observed in the BSA during the field survey, and no USFWS-designated critical habitat is located within the BSA. A total of 12 special-status wildlife species were reviewed for their potential to occur in the BSA. A description of these species and their potential to occur is included in Appendix C. Of the 12 special-status species that were reviewed, three special-status wildlife species were determined to have potential to occur in the BSA: • California red-legged frog: federally threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC); • San Francisco garter snake: federally and state endangered, CDFW fully protected species; and • Monarch butterfly: federal candidate species
4.2.1.2.1 California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii)
California red-legged frog, a federally threatened and CDFW SSC, occurs in various habitats during its life cycle. Breeding areas include aquatic habitats, such as lagoons, streams, and natural and human-made ponds. The species prefers aquatic habitats with little or no flow, the presence of surface water to at least early June, surface water depths to at least 2.3 feet, and the presence of emergent vegetation (e.g., cattails and bulrush). During periods of wet weather, some individuals may make overland dispersals through adjacent upland habitats of distances up to one mile (USFWS 2002). Upland habitats including small mammal burrows and woody debris can also be used as refuge during the summer if water is scarce or unavailable (Jennings and Hayes 1994). California red-legged frogs typically travel between sites and are unaffected by topography and vegetation types during migration. Dispersal habitat makes it possible for California red-legged frogs to locate new breeding and non-breeding sites, and is crucial for conservation of the species.
8 139 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Ten California red-legged frog occurrences have been recorded within five miles of the BSA between 1999 and 2016 (CNDDB 2019). The nearest CNDDB record indicates an adult California red-legged frog was observed approximately 300 meters (approximately 984 feet) southwest of the BSA (see Appendix E). The drainage ditches and swale features, and adjacent eucalyptus forest and grassland areas, may provide suitable foraging or dispersal habitat for this species. Based on the abundance of known occurrences within five miles of the property boundary, the understory of bark and leaf litter within the eucalyptus tree forest which could provide suitable dispersal or estivation habitat, and the presence of suitable aquatic breeding and non-breeding habitat within the vicinity of the BSA, there is potential for California red-legged frog to occur in the BSA. However, the developed and disturbed nature within the project area diminishes the quality of habitat for this species; therefore, there is low potential for California red-legged frog to occur within the project area. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, no substantial adverse effects to California red-legged frog are anticipated to occur as a result of the project.
4.2.1.2.2 San Francisco Gartner Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia)
The federally and state endangered San Francisco garter snake’s historical range is entirely within San Mateo County. The two main components of San Francisco garter snake habitat are: (1) wetlands supporting its prey species (e.g., California red-legged frog and Pacific chorus frog [Pseudacris regilla]); and (2) surrounding uplands that support small mammal burrows used by the snakes for escape cover (USFWS 2006). San Francisco garter snakes inhabit various aquatic habitats, including reservoirs, freshwater marshes, creeks, drainage ditches, ponds, and lakes. Less ideal habitats can also be used by San Francisco garter snake, such as ditches and other waterways, or floating algal or rush mats. Suitable breeding habitat includes shallow marshlands with an abundance of emergent vegetation. Grasslands are also an important upland habitat for this species, as they provide areas for thermoregulation and cover. Prey items for this species include California red-legged frog, Pacific chorus frog, and earthworms. Small mammal burrows are used by San Francisco garter snake during hibernation. During the warm days of summer, most activity occurs during the morning and afternoon. Preferred nocturnal retreats are thought to be holes, especially mammal burrows, crevices, and surface objects (USFWS 2007).
While freshwater emergent wetlands and ponds associated with San Francisco garter snake habitat are absent in the BSA, the drainage and swale features within the BSA may provide marginal foraging or dispersal habitat for this species. Burrows were not observed within the eucalyptus forest due to the thick layer of duff. Although some burrows were observed in the non-native grassland and landscaped areas in the BSA, the overall habitat quality of the project area is marginal for this species which typically has close ties to water. However, San Francisco garter snake occurrences have been recorded within five miles of the BSA. The nearest CNDDB records indicate two San Francisco garter snake adults were captured during a trap study in 1988 at a terminal lagoon at the mouth of Pilarcitos Creek, approximately 1.4 miles to the north. The existing drainages may provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for the San Francisco garter snake. However, due to the lack of aquatic habitat within and adjacent to the project area that would support breeding populations of their primary prey there is low potential for the San Francisco garter snake to occur within the project area. Additionally, with the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, impacts to San Francisco garter snake are not anticipated to occur as a result of the project.
4.2.1.2.3 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a federal candidate for listing. Coastal California offers hundreds of overwintering sites, from Mendocino County to Baja California, Mexico. The majority of overwintering sites are found at low elevation levels (approximately 200-300 feet) and south, southwest, or west facing slopes, or in shallow canyons or gullies (Pelton et al. 2016). Monarchs require very specific
9 140 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation microclimatic conditions, including protection from wind and cold temperatures, which are often found within sites that consist of a roost of blue gum eucalyptus, Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), or Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees. In addition, habitats must have milkweed (Ascelpias sp.) and nectar plants as a food source for the butterflies. Monarchs are known to return to these overwintering sites annually and begin arriving from September through the first half of October to form fall aggregations. By mid-November stable aggregations are formed that persist through January–February. Monarch butterflies breed at the overwintering site in February–March (Pelton et al. 2016).
Monarch butterfly occurrences have been recorded within 0.2 mile of the BSA. Historical CNDDB records (last record in 1998) indicate monarchs were observed within 0.5 mile of the BSA. There is potentially suitable habitat within the eucalyptus forest within and surrounding the project area (including the eucalyptus branches that overhang the northeast portion of the property). However, there is low potential for monarchs to overwinter in the eucalyptus forest within the BSA and project area due to the lack of tree roosts that provide protection from the wind and other elements. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, impacts to the monarch butterfly are not anticipated to occur as a result of the project.
4.2.2 Nesting Migratory Passerine Birds and Raptors
The BSA contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 and 3513. Avian species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code observed (by sight and vocalization) in the BSA during the field survey included red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis; vocalization and possible stick nest), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Additionally, during the biological survey, one inactive stick nest (possibly from a raptor) was observed within the eucalyptus stand immediately north of the project boundary. The eucalyptus forest in the BSA has potential to support other nesting birds protected under the MBTA. The project has the potential to impact potential eggs or young of avian species covered under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. To avoid and minimize potential impacts, it is recommended that avoidance and minimization measures, including preconstruction nesting bird surveys, described in Section 5 be implemented. 4.2.3 Wildlife Habitats
Due to the fragmentation, development, and high level of disturbance and human activity, it is not anticipated that the project will adversely affect a wildlife movement corridor. While the potentially jurisdictional drainage features (Section 4.2.4) may provide low-quality migration habitat for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, the project will likely not have any significant impacts on natural habitat and is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife, nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
4.2.4 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Waters of the U.S.
One potentially jurisdictional drainage ditch extends east to west through the BSA along the south side of Magnolia Street, but is well outside of the project site and will not be impacted by project activities. A second potentially jurisdictional drainage ditch runs east to west through the BSA along the south side of Seymour Street within an agricultural field. However, this drainage ditch is also well outside the project area and will not be impacted by project activities.
10 141 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
A drainage swale was noted east of the project area adjacent to the west side of Highway 1. However, because the drainage swale is located outside of and east of the project area, it will not be impacted by project activities.
An approximately two-foot diameter plastic drainage pipe inlet was noted just outside the project area on the adjacent property to the west. At the time of the survey, it was not possible to determine where the inlet drained to. It’s likely that the inlet is no longer functional.
4.2.4.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The topography within the BSA is nearly flat (<5% grade). The elevation ranges from approximately 70 to 90 feet above mean sea level. Results from the NRCS Web Soil Survey yielded two soil types within the BSA: Botella clay loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, Major Land Resource Area 14), and Watsonville clay loam, nearly level. Based on aerial imagery and topography, the property appears to generally drain in an east-to-west direction. No soil pits were dug or examined during the field investigation. 4.2.5 Coastal Resource Areas
Based on the literature review and field survey observations, CRAs were observed within the BSA. Observed CRAs include habitats that contain or have the potential to contain unique species or any rare and endangered species defined by the State Fish and Game Commission. Provided below is a description of the CRAs and the potential for impacts.
4.2.5.1 RIPARIAN AREAS AND CORRIDORS
Section 18.38.020 of the City Code defines riparian areas and corridors as follows: Any area of land bordering a perennial or intermittent stream or their tributaries, or around a lake or other body of fresh water, including its banks and at least up to the highest point of an obvious channel or enclosure of a body of water. Riparian corridors are the areas between the limits of riparian vegetation, where limits are determined by vegetative coverage, at least fifty percent of which is comprised of a combination of the following plant species: red alder, jaumea, pickleweed, big leaf maple, narrow-leaf cattail, arroyo willow, broadleaf cattail, horsetail, creek dogwood, black cottonwood, and box elder.
Although drainages and swales were observed within the BSA, the drainage ditches and swales do not meet the definition of a riparian area or corridor under Section 18.38.020 of the City Code. Therefore, the drainage ditches do not meet the criteria for a riparian area or riparian corridor CRA.
4.2.5.2 HABITATS CONTAINING OR SUPPORTING UNIQUE SPECIES OR ANY RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Various habitats in the BSA have the potential to support unique species and/or special-status species. Unique species, including raptors, California red-legged frog, sea mammals, California wild strawberry (Fragaria californica), and Monterey pine have been identified by the City as having “scientific or historic value, few indigenous habitats, or some characteristics that draw attention or are locally uncommon” (City of Half Moon Bay 1993).
The eucalyptus forest and non-native grassland habitat observed in the BSA (see Figure 3) have the potential to support unique and/or special-status species such as California red-legged frog, San Francisco
11 142 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation garter snake, and monarch butterfly, as well as suitable nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds and raptors. Impacts to these habitats could occur through the removal of eucalyptus tree branches and removal of non-native grasses to accommodate the proposed project. However, the project is not expected to have significant impacts to unique, rare, or endangered species or their habitats as the habitats within the project area only provide marginally suitable habitat for these species. Additionally, none of these species were observed during the surveys. The avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 5 are recommended to avoid potential impacts to unique, rare, or endangered species and their habitats.
5 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES
The goal of this BRE is to identify sensitive biological resources in the BSA and to provide avoidance and minimization measures that will prevent the project activities from resulting in substantial adverse effects on special-status species, riparian habitats, or other sensitive communities, federally protected wetlands, or wildlife movement corridors. The following 15 avoidance and minimization measures are designed to prevent the project from having a potentially significant biological impact. 1. Prior to the start of the project, all construction crew members will attend an environmental awareness training presented by a qualified biologist. A training brochure describing special- status species, project avoidance and minimization measures, key contacts, and potential consequences of impacts to special-status species and potentially jurisdictional water features will be distributed to the crew members during the training. 2. Disturbance to vegetation should be kept to the minimum necessary to complete the project activities, provided there is no feasible alternative. To minimize impacts to vegetation, a qualified biologist shall work with the contractor to designate the work area and any staging areas, as well as delineate areas that should be avoided, with exclusionary fencing (i.e., high visibility orange construction fencing or silt fence). Areas identified to avoid will include the potentially jurisdictional drainages and the swale located east of the project area. 3. If any wildlife is encountered during project activities, said wildlife should be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and a biologist would be able to relocate the wildlife outside of the project limits. All federally or state-listed wildlife species will be allowed to leave the work area of their own accord and without harassment. Listed animals should not be picked up or moved in any way. 4. Any and all spoils (e.g., dirt, debris, construction-related materials) generated during project activities shall be placed where they cannot enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages or swales. 5. All exposed soils in the work area (resulting from project activities) shall be stabilized immediately following the completion of work to prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices, such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel or rock-lined drainages, water check bars, and broadcast straw, can be used. Straw wattles, if used, shall be made of biodegradable fabric (e.g., burlap) and free of monofilament netting. At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages or swales. 6. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grubbing or grading) should occur during the dry season (June 1 to October 15) to facilitate avoidance of California red-legged frog. Regardless of the season, no construction shall occur within 24 hours following a significant rain event (greater than 1/4 inch in a 24-hour period). Following a significant rain event and the 24-hour drying-out period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog prior to the restart of any project activities.
12 143 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
7. To protect potential burrows, no soil shall be stockpiled on the ground unless it is a paved surface. 8. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators should be properly contained, removed, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, trash/construction debris should be removed from work areas. 9. To assist in excluding California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from the work area, an exclusion fence should be installed around the work area prior to the commencement of construction activities. Exclusion fencing should be silt-fence type fencing or equivalent, and should not include poly mesh fencing or other similar fencing that could entrap or snag reptiles, amphibians, or other small animals. Exclusion fencing should be installed with the fence stakes placed on the inside of the fencing (closest to the project boundary) to prevent frogs or snakes from using the stakes to maneuver over the fence. The fencing should be maintained until all work has been completed. 10. The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity should be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. Routes and boundaries should be clearly demarcated, and these areas should be outside of the potentially jurisdictional drainages. 11. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas should occur at least 100 feet from the potentially jurisdictional drainages. The owner should ensure that contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of work, the Owner should ensure that there is a plan to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers should be informed of the importance of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. 12. Tree removal and trimming activities should be conducted outside of nesting bird season. However, if project activities are conducted during nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), preconstruction nest surveys should be conducted in and near the project (within 250 feet for large raptors and 100 feet for all other birds) by a qualified biologist. If nesting is identified during the preconstruction survey, then the project should be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct take of the identified nests, eggs, and/or young. 13. Tree removal and trimming activities should be conducted outside of the over-wintering season for monarch butterfly (approximately mid-October to March). If tree removal is required during the over-wintering season, removal shall not take place when temperatures are 55 degrees Fahrenheit and below (when monarch butterflies could be clustered in roost trees due to low temperatures). 14. A biological monitor should conduct a preconstruction survey prior to project work. In addition, the biological monitor should perform a survey during the flowering season for fragrant fritillary to ensure that the species does not occur within the project area and no additional mitigations would be required. 15. For any project impacts to potentially jurisdictional wetland/water features surrounding the project area, a formal wetland delineation should be conducted and applicable wetland/waters permitting performed with the appropriate agencies, as required.
13 144 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
14 145 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
6 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R. Patterson, T. Rosatti (editors). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Calflora. 2019. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation (Calflora). Berkeley, California. Available at: http://www.calflora.org/topMission.html. Accessed June 18, 2019.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2019a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). California Native Plant Society. Available at: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi- bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Accessed June 18, 2019.
———. 2019b. Manual of California Vegetation Online. California Native Plant Society. Available at: http://cnps.org/. Accessed August, 2019.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2019. Rarefind data for the Half Moon Bay, Montara Mountain, Woodside 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangles.
City of Half Moon Bay. 1993. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, Chapter 3: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Amended 1993.
———. 2018. Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, Title 18: Zoning.
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.
Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Concern in California. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Soil Survey GIS Data. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Accessed June 17, 2019.
Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S.H. Black. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. 40+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
———. 2006. San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office.
———. 2007. Endangered Species Accounts: San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia).
———. 2019a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. Accessed June 16, 2019.
———. 2019b. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed June 16, 2019.
15 146 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
———. 2019c. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed June 18, 2019.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. National Hydrography Dataset GIS Data. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed June 18, 2019.
16 147
APPENDIX A
Photo-Documentation
148
149 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Photograph A-1. View facing east showing non-native grassland in the project area.
Photograph A-2. View facing east showing the Eucalyptus grove at the north side of the property (note Eucalyptus tree branches overhanging portions of the project area).
A-1 150 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Photograph A-3. View facing south looking across Seymour Street at an agricultural field consisting of non-native grassland on the south side of the BSA.
Photograph A-4. View facing east looking at small ornamental trees and shrubs along the southern boundary of the project area.
A-2 151 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Photograph A-5. View facing west looking at an approximately two-foot diameter plastic drain inlet (left foreground) just outside the southwest corner of the project area.
A-3 152 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
A-4 153
APPENDIX B
USFWS Records Results
154
155 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-1 156 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-2 157 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-3 158 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-4 159 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-5 160 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-6 161 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-7 162 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-8 163 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-9 164 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-10 165 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-11 166 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-12 167 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-13 168 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-14 169 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-15 170 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-16 171 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-17 172 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-18 173
APPENDIX C
CNDDB and CNPS Natural Communities and Species, and their Potential to Occur in the Biological Study Area
174
175 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Table C-1. Special-Status Natural Communities and Species, and their Potential to Occur in the Biological Study Area
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence† CNPS Status*
Natural Communities Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Marsh habitat supporting herbaceous, suffrutescent, salt-tolerant -- None: There is no suitable habitat for the species in hydrophytes often active in summer and dormant in winter. the BSA. Characteristic species include Jaumea carnosa, Limonium californicum, and Frankenia salina. Developed around Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay, San Francisco Bay, Elkhorn Slough, and Morro Bay. Plants Anderson’s manzanita Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in openings and edges among broad- --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Arctostaphylos andersonii) leafed upland forest, chaparral, and North Coast coniferous forest. Impacts to this species are not expected. Elevation: 60–760 meters. Flower season: November–May. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. arcuate bush-mallow Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in chaparral and cismontane --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Malacothamnus arcuatus) woodland. Elevation: 15–355 meters. Flower season: April–September. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. bent-flowered fiddleneck Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, and --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Amsinckia lunaris) valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 3–500 meters. Flower season: No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of March–June the project. Blasdale's bent grass Perennial rhizomatous herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, --/--/1B.2 None: No CNDDB occurrences recorded within (Agrostis blasdalei) coastal prairie. Elevation: 5–150 meters. Flower season: May–July. 5 miles of the project. Habitat onsite is of low quality (i.e., previously disturbed / impacted by human activity). chaparral ragwort Annual herb occurs in dry coastal areas, particularly alkali flats. --/--/2B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Senecio aphanactis) Elevation: 2–706 meters. Flower season: January-April. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. Choris' popcorn-flower Annual herb occurs in grassy, moist places; ephemeral drainages; --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Five (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. coastal scrub; and chaparral. Elevation: 0–650 meters. Flower season: CNDDB occurrences have been recorded within pycnostachyus) March–June. 5 miles of the BSA. coast lily Perennial herb occurs in coastal prairie or scrub, peatland, and gaps in --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Lilium maritimum) closed-cone-pine forest. Elevation: 0–150 meters. Flower season: May– No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of July. the project. coast yellow leptosiphon Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal prairie. --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Leptosiphon croceus) Elevation: 10–150 meters. Flower season: April–May. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. coastal marsh milk-vetch Perennial herb that occurs in coastal marshes, seeps, and adjacent --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. There (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. sand along the northern and central California coast. is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 2/5 mile pycnostachyus) Elevation: 0–150 meters. Flower season: April–October. of the BSA.
C-1 176 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence† CNPS Status* coastal triquetrella Moss occurs in coastal bluff scrub or coastal scrub. --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Triquetrella californica) Elevation: 10–100 meters. Species not observed during the field survey. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Crystal Springs lessingia Annual herb occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley --/--/1B.2 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range (Lessingia arachnoidea) and foothill grassland. Elevation: 60–200 meters. Flower season: July– for this species. Species not observed during the October. field survey. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Davidson's bush-mallow Perennial deciduous herb occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range (Malacothamnus davidsonii) coastal scrub, and riparian woodland; usually occurs in non-wetlands, for this species. Species not observed during the but occasionally found in wetlands. Elevation: 185–855 meters. Flower field survey. No CNDDB occurrences recorded season: June–January. within 5 miles of the BSA. Dudley's lousewort Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, North --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Pedicularis dudleyi) Coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grasslands. Impacts to this species are not expected. Elevation: 60–900 meters. Flower season: April–June. fragrant fritillary Bulbiferous herb occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal prairies, --/--/1B.2 Low: Species not observed during the field survey; (Fritillaria liliacea) coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; equally likely to occur in however, the survey was conducted outside of the wetlands or non-wetlands, occasionally associated with serpentine. bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded Elevation: 3–410 meters. Flower season: February–April. within 5 miles of the BSA. Non-native grassland habitat in the BSA may provide low quality habitat for this species. Franciscan onion Perennial bulbiferous herb occurs on dry hillsides. --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Allium peninsulare var. Elevation: 1–60 meters. Flower season: May–June. No species observed. No CNDDB occurrences franciscanum) recorded within 5 miles of the project. Franciscan thistle Perennial herb occurs in broadleafed upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Cirsium andrewsii) coastal prairie, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 0–150 meters. Flower No species observed. No CNDDB occurrences season: March–July. recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Hall's bush-mallow Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub. --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Malacothamnus hallii) Elevation: 10–760 meters. Flower season: May–September. Species not observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Hickman's cinquefoil Perennial herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous FE/SE/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Potentilla hickmanii) forest, meadows and seeps, and marshes and swamps. Species not observed during the field survey, which Elevation: 10–149 meters. Flower season: April–August was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA.
C-2 177 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence† CNPS Status* Hillsborough chocolate lily Perennial bulbiferous herb occurs in cismontane woodland and valley --/--/1B.1 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range (Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana) and foothill grassland (affinity to serpentine soil). for this species. Elevation: 150–150 meters. Flower season: March–April Indian Valley bush-mallow Perennial deciduous shrub occurs in chaparral and cismontane --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Malacothamnus aboriginum) woodland. Elevation: 150–1700 meters. Flower season: April–October. outside of the known elevation range for this species. Species not observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. island rock lichen Foliose lichen found on the bark and wood of hardwoods and conifers in --/--/1B.3 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Hypogymnia schizidiata) closed-cone coniferous forests and chaparral. Currently only known outside of the known elevation range for this from the Channel Islands and Baja California. species. Elevation: 360-405 meters. johnny-nip Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal prairie. Elevation: --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Castilleja ambigua var. 0–100 meters. Flower season: May- August. Species not observed during the field survey, which ambigua) was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Kellogg's horkelia Perennial herb occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Horkelia cuneata var. sericea) coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 10–200 meters. Flower Species not observed during the field survey, which season: April–September. was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. There is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 1/10 mile of the BSA. Kings Mountain manzanita Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in broad-leafed upland forest, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Arctostaphylos regismontana) chaparral, and North Coast coniferous forest. outside of the known elevation range for this Elevation: 305–730 meters. Flower season: January–April species. There is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 2/5 mile of the BSA. Marin checker lily Perennial bulbiferous herb occurs in occurs in coastal bluff scrub, --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Fritillaria lanceolata var. coastal prairie, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 15–150 meters. Flower No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of tristulis) season: February–May the BSA. Marin western flax Annual herb associated with serpentine grasslands. --/--/1B.1 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Hesperolinon congestum) Elevation: 0–200 meters in the northwestern San Francisco Bay Area. which was conducted during the appropriate bloom Flower season: April–August. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. marsh microseris Perennial herb occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Microseris paludosa) woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of Elevation: 5–300 meters. Flower season: April–June the BSA.
C-3 178 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence† CNPS Status* Montara manzanita Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in chaparral and coastal scrub. --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Arctostaphylos montaraensis) Elevation: 150–500 meters. Flower season: January–March. outside of the known elevation range for this species. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. Oregon polemonium Perennial herb occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and lower --/--/2.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Polemonium carneum) montane coniferous forest. Elevation: 0–1,830 meters. Flower season: which was conducted during the appropriate bloom April–September. period. The most recent CNDDB occurrence within 5 miles of the BSA was recorded in 1916. Ornduff's meadowfoam Annual herb recorded only in one field on the San Mateo County coast. --/--1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Limnanthes douglasii ssp. It is the only known site where the four-part meadowfoam naturally No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of ornduffii) appears. Elevation: 10–20 meters. Flower season: November–May. the project. pappose tarplant Annual herb occurs in valley and foothill grassland, marshes and --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Centromadia parryi ssp. swamps, meadows and seeps, coastal prairie, and chaparral. which was conducted during the appropriate bloom parryi) Elevation: 2–420 meters. Flower season: May–November. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. perennial goldfields Perennial herb from Asteraceae family occurs in coastal bluff scrub, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Lasthenia californica ssp. coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 6–750 meters. Flower Species not observed during the field survey, which Macrantha) season: January–November. was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Point Reyes bird's-beak Annual herb (hemiparisitic) occurs in marshes and swamps (coastal --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Cordylanthus maritimus) salt). Elevation: 0–10 meters. Flower season: June–October. Species not observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Point Reyes horkelia Perennial herb occurs in coastal dunes, coastal prairie, and coastal --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Horkelia marinensis) scrub. Elevation: 5–350 meters. Flower season: May–September. which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. rose leptosiphon Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub. Elevation: 0–100 meters. --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat, (Leptosiphon rosaceus) Flower season: April–July. including coastal bluff scrub which is preferred by this speces. There is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 80 meters of the BSA. saline clover Annual herb occurs in marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and valley --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Trifolium hydrophilum) and foothill grasslands (mesic and alkaline soils). No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of Elevation: 0–300 meters. Flower season: April–June. the BSA. San Francisco Bay spineflower Annual herb occurs on coastal bluff scrub, dunes, prairie, and scrub. --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. Elevation: 3–215 meters. Flower season: April–July. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of cuspidata) the BSA.
C-4 179 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence† CNPS Status* San Francisco campion Perennial herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal prairie, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Silene verecunda ssp. coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. The nearest known CNDDB occurrence was verecunda) Elevation: 30–645 meters. Flower season: March–June. recorded approximately 1 mile from the BSA in 1900. San Francisco collinsia Annual herb occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest and coastal scrub --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Collinsia multicolor) (affinity to serpentine soil). Elevation: 30–250 meters. Flower season: The most recent known CNDDB occurrence within March–May. 5 miles of the BSA was recorded in 1893. San Francisco owl's-clover Annual herb occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Triphysaria floribunda) foothill grassland (affinity to serpentine soil). Elevation: 10–160 meters. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of Flower season: April–June. the BSA. San Mateo thorn mint Annual herb occurs in serpentine soils. Elevation 150-300 meters. FE/SE/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Acanthomintha duttonii) Flower season: April-June No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. San Mateo woolly sunflower Perennial herb occurs in cismontane woodland. FE/SE/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Eriophyllum latilobum) Elevation: 45–150 meters. Flower season: May–June. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Scouler's catchfly Perennial her occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, and valley --/--/2B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Silene scouleri ssp. Scouleri) and foothill grassland. Elevation: 0-300 meters. Flower season: June- Species not observed during the field survey, which August was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. short-leaved evax Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes. --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Hesperevax sparsiflora var. Elevation: 0–215 meters. Flower season: March–June. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of brevifolia) the BSA. western leatherwood Perennial deciduous shrub that occurs in broad-leafed upland forest, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Dirca occidentalis) closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, North No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of Coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and riparian woodland. the project. Generally north or northeast facing slopes, mixed-evergreen forest to chaparral, generally in fog belt. Elevation: 50–395 meters. Flower season: January–April. white-rayed pentachaeta Annual herb occurs in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill FE/SE/1B.1 None: BSA is slightly outside of the known elevation (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) grassland. Elevation: 35–620 meters. Flower season: March–May. range for this species. BSA does not contain suitable habitat. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. woodland woolythreads Annual herb occurs in broad-leafed upland forest, chaparral, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range (Monolopia gracilens) cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and valley and for this species. BSA does not contain suitable foothill grassland. Elevation: 100–1,200 meters. Flower season: March– habitat. July.
C-5 180 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence† CNPS Status*
Amphibians California giant salamander Endemic to California. Uses a wide range of habitats including --/--/-- None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. (Dicamptodon ensatus) temperate forests, rivers, freshwater lakes, and freshwater marshes. Species not observed during the field survey. In 1997, there was a CNDDB occurrence approximately 80 meters way from the propose project area. California red-legged frog Inhabit permanent and temporary pools, streams, freshwater seeps, FT/SSC Low: Suitable dispersal or estivation habitat for this (Rana draytonii) and marshes in lowlands and foothills occurring from sea level to species occurs in the vicinity of the project. 6,500 feet. Use adjacent upland habitat for foraging and refuge. Breed The nearest known CNDDB occurrence was during the wet season from December through March. Lay between recorded within approximately 300 meters of the 300 and 4,000 eggs in a large cluster that are attached to plants near BSA. the water surface. Eggs hatch after about 4 weeks and undergo metamorphosis in 4 to 7 months. Reptiles San Francisco garter snake Uses a wide range of habitats; prefers grassland or wetland near FE/SE, FP Low: Potential dispersal habitat for this species (Thamnophis sirtalis ponds, marshes, and sloughs; may overwinter in upland areas away occurs in the vicinity of the project. The nearest tetrataenia) from water. known CNDDB occurrence was recorded approximately 1.4 miles north of the BSA at the mouth of Pilarcitos Creek. Birds American peregrine falcon Forages primarily on birds in urban and natural environments including MBTA/FP None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Falco peregrinus anatum) pasturelands, marshes, mudflats, and tidal zones that attract large foraging habitat. concentrations of shorebirds and other water birds. Nests almost exclusively on protected ledges of high cliffs, but may also use manmade structures, such as tall buildings and bridges, and will occasionally use tree or snag cavities or old nests of other raptors Borrowing owl Occurs in open, dry, annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and MBTA/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Athene cunicularia) scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. foraging habitat. marbled murrelet Pacific seabird winters and forages at sea and breeds in coniferous FT, MBTA/SE None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Brachyramphus marmoratus) forests near coasts. Nest on large horizontal branches high up in trees foraging habitat. that are generally greater than 200 years old. saltmarsh common Frequents low, dense vegetation near water. Nest usually placed on or --/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or yellowthroat within 8 centimeters (3 inches) of ground. May be over water, in foraging habitat. (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) emergent aquatic vegetation, dense shrubs, or other dense growth. western snowy plover Shores, peninsulas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries, and rivers along FT, MBTA/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Charadrius alexandrinus the Pacific Coast. Breeding sites entail coastal beaches above the high foraging habitat. nivosus) tide line, sand spits, dune-backed beaches, and river bars.
C-6 181 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence† CNPS Status*
Mammals American badger Occurs in herbaceous, shrub, and open stages of most habitats with --/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Taxidea taxus) dry, friable soils. Uncommon, permanent resident found throughout foraging habitat, and no suitable burrows were most of California. observed in the BSA. San Francisco dusky-footed Medium-sized rodents found in grasslands, scrub, and wooded areas --/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or woodrat throughout the San Francisco Bay area. foraging habitat, and no middens were observed (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) during the field survey. Fish steelhead – central California Clear, cool water with abundant in-stream cover, well-vegetated stream FT/-- None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. coast DPS margins, relatively stable water flow, and a 1:1 pool-to-riffle ratio. (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) Invertebrates Monarch butterfly Occurs along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, FC/-- Low: Marginally suitable dispersal habitat and poor (Danaus plexippus) Mexico. Winter roosts in wind protected tree groves (eucalyptus, roosting habitat occurs within the vicinity of the Monterey pine and cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. project. In addition, there is a historical CNDDB occurrence within 0.5 mile of the project. This species was not observed during the biological survey. San Bruno elfin butterfly Inhabits rocky outcroppings and cliffs coastal scrub within the FE/-- None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat, or the (Callophrys mossii bayensis) San Francisco peninsula area. BSA is outside the known range of the species.
Sources: Baldwin et al. (2012), CNDDB (2019), USFWS (2019). *Status Codes: -- = No status Federal: FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate; MBTA = Protected by Migratory Bird Treaty Act State: SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SR = State Rare; SSC = California Species of Special Concern; FP = Fully Protected California Native Plant Society (CNPS): List 1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere List 3 = Plants about which more information is needed List 4 = Watch list of plants of limited distribution CNPS Threat Code: _.1 = Seriously endangered in California (more than 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) _.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20–80% occurrences threatened) _.3 = Not very endangered I California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) † Potential for Occurrence Ratings: None = No potential for the species or habitat to occur due to lack of suitable habitat in the BSA. Low = Species has been mapped within 5 miles of the BSA, but record is old/unreliable, the appropriate habitat is not present, or the record is far from the project area. Moderate = Records have been mapped near the project area and/or suitable habitat is present, but records are old or far from the project area. High = Species has high likelihood of presence in the BSA, has been mapped in close proximity to the project area, and suitable habitat is present.
C-7 182 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
C-8 183
APPENDIX D
Species Observed During the Field Survey
184
185 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Table D-1. Species Observed During the Field Survey
Scientific Name Common Name Native Species Status/Notes
PLANT SPECIES* GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceae Cypress family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress Yes Pinus contorta ssp. contorta shore pine Yes Sequoia sempervirens coast redwood Yes Pinaceae Pine family Pinus radiata Monterey pine Yes Angiosperms (Eudicots) Anacardiaceae Sumac Family Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Yes Araliaceae Ginseng family Hedera helix English ivy No Invasive Apiaceae Carrot family Conium maculatum poison hemlock No Duacus carota wild carrot No Foeniculum vulgare fennel No Cal-IPC rating: High Asteraceae Sunflower Family Achillea millefolium yarrow Yes Delairea ordata German Ivy No Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed Yes Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue No Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce No Senecio vulgaris common groundsel No Sonchus oleraceus sow thistle No Symphyotrichum chilense California aster Yes Tragopogon porrifolius purple salsify No Brassicaceae Mustard Family Hirschfeldia incana summer mustard No Cal-IPC rating: Moderate Raphanus sativa Wild radish No Convolvulaceae Morning Glory Family Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed No Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family Euphorbia peplus petty spurge No Mercurialis annua annual mercury No Fabaceae Pea Family Lotus corniculatus bird’s foot trefoil No Medicago polymorpha California burclover No
D-1 186 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Scientific Name Common Name Native Species Status/Notes
Vicia sp. unknown vetch Unknown Geraniaceae Geranium Family Geranium dissectum cut leaved geranium No Malvaceae Mallow Family Malva parviflora cheeseweed mallow No Myrsinaceae Myrsine Family Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel No Myrtaceae Myrtle Family Eucalyptus globulus blue-gum eucalyptus No Oleaceae Olive Family Olea europaea olive No Cal-IPC rating: Limited Onagraceae Evening primrose family Epilobium ciliatum slender willow herb Yes Rosaceae rose family Fragaria chiloensis beach strawberry Yes Prunus cerasifera cherry plum No Cal-IPC rating: Limited Malus sp. apple No Rosa sp. ornamental rose No Rubiaceae Madder family Galium aparine Goose grass Yes Papaveraceae Poppy family Eschscholzia californica California poppy Yes Fumaria parviflora fine-leaved fumitory No Plantaginaceae Plantain family Plantago coronopus cut leaf plantain No Plantago lanceolata English plantain No Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed No Rumex crassus willow leaved dock Yes Rumex crispus Curly dock No Rumex pulcher fiddle dock No Rosaceae Rose Family -- Rubus ursinus California blackberry Yes Scorphulariaceae Figwort Family Buddleja davidii butterfly bush No Cal-IPC rating: High Tropaeolaceae Nasturtium Family Tropaeolum majus garden nasturtium No Valerianaceae Valerian Family Centranthus ruber red valerian No
D-2 187 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Scientific Name Common Name Native Species Status/Notes
Angiosperms (monocots) Iridaceae iris family Chasmanthe floribunda African cornflag No Invasive Poaceae Grass Family Avena barbata slender wild oats No Bromus catharticus rescue grass No Bromus diandrus ripgut brome No Cortaderia jubata pampas grass No Cal-IPC rating: High Festuca perennis Italian rye grass No Holcus lanatus velvet grass No Cal-IPC rating: Moderate Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum foxtail No Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass No Cal-IPC rating: Limited Phalaris aquatica harding grass No WILDLIFE SPECIES Insecta insects Bombus sp, bumble bee Unknown Aves birds Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk Yes Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Yes Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird Yes Psaltriparus minimus Bushtits Yes Mammalia mammals Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher Yes
* Data from Baldwin et al. (2012).
D-3 188 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
D-4 189
APPENDIX E
Special-Status Species Records
190
191 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure E-1. CNDDB plant map.
E-1 192 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure E-2. CNDDB wildlife map.
E-2 193 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Table E-1. California Natural Diversity Database Records Results
Latin Name Common Name EONDX ACCURACY SITEDATE FEDLIST CALLIST RPLANTRANK
Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita 56346 specific area 20130105 None None 1B.2 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. coastal marsh milk-vetch 49631 2/5 mile 20040823 None None 1B.2 pycnostachyus Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl 114464 1/10 mile 20171120 None None Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee 100351 1 mile 19530328 None None Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet 99414 nonspecific 20110722 Threatened Endangered area Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet 99411 nonspecific 2007XXXX Threatened Endangered area Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover 104890 80 meters 20160503 Threatened None Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering 12310 2/5 mile 19980105 None None population Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering 99755 1/5 mile 19980105 None None population Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering 13262 1/5 mile 19980105 None None population Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering 22934 1/5 mile 20121028 None None population Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander 98609 80 meters 19971217 None None Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon 70079 80 meters 20070515 Delisted Delisted Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily 26561 specific area 20160322 None None 1B.2 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 59824 2/5 mile 19900620 None None Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 13461 1/5 mile 19900602 None None Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 24807 1/5 mile 19900701 None None Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia 64647 1/10 mile 20000425 None None 1B.1 Lasthenia californica ssp. perennial goldfields 103072 specific area 20150409 None None 1B.1 macrantha Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon 95234 80 meters 20140521 None None 1B.1 Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads 94197 nonspecific 20130516 None None 1B.2 area
E-3 194 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Latin Name Common Name EONDX ACCURACY SITEDATE FEDLIST CALLIST RPLANTRANK
Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky-footed 70792 80 meters 20070910 None None woodrat Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 26269 1/5 mile 19780321 None None Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast 30141 specific area 19790920 Threatened None DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast 79277 nonspecific 20000903 Threatened None DPS area Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast 41534 80 meters 19990415 Threatened None DPS Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Choris' popcornflower 57049 specific area 20130611 None None 1B.2 chorisianus Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Choris' popcornflower 94297 nonspecific 20100604 None None 1B.2 chorisianus area Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Choris' popcornflower 94290 specific area 20070424 None None 1B.2 chorisianus Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Choris' popcornflower 94292 specific area 20130520 None None 1B.2 chorisianus Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Choris' popcornflower 94281 specific area 20070731 None None 1B.2 chorisianus Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 56076 1/5 mile 20040607 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 33319 specific area 20070919 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 78886 specific area 20100305 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 70285 specific area 20061011 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 41133 80 meters 19990507 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 48448 80 meters 20020711 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 68205 80 meters 20070111 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 63554 80 meters 20010618 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 42675 nonspecific 20110913 Threatened None area Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 105601 1/10 mile 20160927 Threatened None Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion 60254 1 mile 19000317 None None 1B.2 Taxidea taxus American badger 114381 nonspecific 20170701 None None
E-4 195 555 Seymour Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Latin Name Common Name EONDX ACCURACY SITEDATE FEDLIST CALLIST RPLANTRANK
Taxidea taxus American badger 114377 80 meters 20180618 None None Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27531 specific area 20111115 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93211 nonspecific 19510318 Endangered Endangered area Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93247 1/5 mile 20040804 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27538 nonspecific 20140328 Endangered Endangered area Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27537 1/5 mile 19870505 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 14768 nonspecific 20130904 Endangered Endangered area Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92745 specific area 20120720 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27497 specific area 20080413 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92750 1/10 mile 19380805 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93271 1/5 mile 1983XXXX Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92595 1/10 mile 20060815 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27539 specific area 20120416 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92603 80 meters 20110505 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 14767 specific area 20130703 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 72663 specific area 20080421 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93262 1/5 mile 19791226 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27540 nonspecific 20060927 Endangered Endangered area Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92744 80 meters 20070413 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92544 1/10 mile 20070812 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27485 1/5 mile 198XXXXX Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 55709 80 meters 20040510 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93280 1/10 mile 20070426 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 64439 specific area 20060215 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93282 1/10 mile 20070814 Endangered Endangered
E-5 196
197
APPENDIX A2
Biological Resources Evaluation for the 546 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California
198
199
Biological Resource Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California
JUNE 2019
PREPARED FOR City of Half Moon Bay
PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants
200
201
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION FOR THE 564 MAGNOLIA STREET PROJECT, HALF MOON BAY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, California 94019 Attn: Brittney Cozzolino, Associate Planner
Prepared by Lincoln Allen, Senior Project Manager/Biologist SWCA Environmental Consultants 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-7095 www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 55849
June 2019
202
203 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared this Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) in support of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the proposed addition of a single-family residence located at 564 Magnolia Street in the city of Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (project).
This BRE documents the existing environmental setting for the project and the biological study area (which includes the property boundary plus a 200-foot buffer). SWCA conducted a desktop review and field survey for sensitive biological resources with the potential to occur in the biological study area (BSA), and to identify activities that may impact a Coastal Resource Area (CRA). In addition, this BRE provides a list of recommended avoidance and minimization measures designed to prevent the project from having a potentially significant biological impact.
Based on the results of the literature review and field survey, the BSA contains: • suitable habitat for several nesting migratory birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; • suitable dispersal and estivation habitat for two federally or state listed wildlife species (California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii] and San Francisco garter snake [Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia]); • suitable over-wintering habitat for one federal candidate species Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus); • suitable habitat for a California Native Plant Society rank 1B.2 plant (fragrant fritillary [Fritillaria liliacea]); • an intermittent drainage channel that may be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction; • a drainage swale that may be subject to California Coastal Commission jurisdiction; and • CRAs, including sensitive habitat areas.
No special-status plant or animal species were observed during the survey, although suitable habitat for the above mentioned species was observed in the BSA. The project is located approximately 20 feet south of a potentially jurisdictional water feature. The proposed project does not encroach beyond the property boundary, and the existing drainage ditch (potential jurisdictional water feature) would be culverted as part of the driveway installation. The project may impact a CRA as defined by the City of Half Moon Bay Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. However, no significant biological impact is expected provided that avoidance and minimization measures in Section 5 are implemented.
i 204 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
ii 205 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...... i 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of Biological Resource Evaluation ...... 1 1.2 Project Location and Description ...... 1 2 Regulatory Background ...... 1 2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 1 2.2 California Endangered Species Act ...... 1 2.3 California Coastal Act and Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program ...... 3 3 Methodology ...... 3 3.1 Desktop Review and Literature Research ...... 3 3.2 Field Survey ...... 5 4 Results...... 5 4.1 Vegetation and Habitat Types ...... 5 4.2 Sensitive Resource Assessment ...... 7 4.2.1 Special-Status Species ...... 7 4.2.2 Nesting Migratory Passerine Birds and Raptors ...... 9 4.2.3 Wildlife Habitats ...... 9 4.2.4 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Waters of the U.S...... 10 4.2.5 Coastal Resource Areas ...... 10 5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ...... 11 6 References ...... 14
Appendices
Appendix A. Photo Documentation Appendix B. USFWS Records Results Appendix C. CNDDB and CNPS Record List and Consideration for Potential Occurrence in the Biological Study Area Appendix D. Species Observed During the Field Survey Appendix E. Special-Status Species Records
Figures
Figure 1. Project vicinity map...... 2 Figure 2. Project location map...... 4 Figure 3. Vegetation community map...... 6
iii 206 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
iv 207 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Biological Resource Evaluation
This Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) has been prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) at the request of the City of Half Moon Bay (City). The intent of this report is to identify sensitive biological resources and activities that may impact a Coastal Resource Area (CRA) per the City’s Zoning Code (City Code) and Land Use Plan (LUP) for the proposed existing single-family residence located at 564 Magnolia Street in Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (project). This report includes the results from a desktop review, literature search, and a field survey of the project site including areas within a 200-foot buffer, referred to hereafter as the biological study area (BSA).
1.2 Project Location and Description
The project includes construction of a new single-story single-family residence at 564 Magnolia Street. Construction of the residence driveway and culvert are the only proposed frontage improvements; the project will not include construction of curb, gutter, or sidewalk. The project would require the removal of eucalyptus trees within the project area. The project is located on a marine terrace approximately 155 to 165 feet above mean sea level, approximately 0.6 mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The project is surrounded by a densely developed residential community to the north, agricultural land to the south, Highway 1 to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west (Figure 1). Per the project site plan, the proposed project includes a 31-foot × 124-foot lot for a single-family home, which would include a paved driveway. Photographs of the project site are included in Appendix A.
2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and prevents the unlawful “take” of listed fish, wildlife, and plant species. Section 9(a)(1)(B) specifically states “take” of species listed as threatened or endangered is unlawful. “Take” is defined as any action that would harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, shoot, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species. Section 10 of the FESA allows USFWS to issue incidental take permits if take of a listed species may occur in the course of otherwise lawful activities. Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires a Habitat Conservation Plan for an incidental take permit on non-federal lands.
2.2 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA) and the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA) ensure legal protection for plants listed as rare or endangered, and wildlife listed as threatened or endangered. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities that may result in the “take” of such species. Take of state-listed species would require a Section 2081 incidental take permit from CDFW. This process requires submittal of a sensitive species study and permit application package to CDFW. If CDFW concurs that impacts to a state-listed species would likely occur as a result of a proposed project, alternatives and measures to avoid or reduce the impacts must be identified in a Section 2081 permit to allow for incidental take authorization. CDFW may also include compensatory mitigation (mitigation/conservation bank) requirements for impacts to habitat for listed plants and wildlife.
1 208 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
2 209 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
2.3 California Coastal Act and Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (CCA) governs the decisions made by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) regarding issues such as shoreline public access and recreation, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, water quality, commercial fisheries, and development within the California coastal zone. Development within the coastal zone would require either a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) or CDP Exemption from the CCC or from a local government with a CCC-certified Local Coastal Program.
The City’s Local Coastal Program has been developed in compliance with the CCA and is guided by the City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of Half Moon Bay 1993). In accordance with the City Zoning Code Section 18.380 and 18.38.035, Coastal Resource Conservation Standards (City of Half Moon Bay 2018), SWCA conducted the biological resource survey and prepared this BRE to assess whether the project would impact a CRA. As defined by Section 18.38.020 of the City Code, CRAs may include the following resources: (1) sensitive habitats including sand dunes, marine habitats, sea cliffs, riparian areas, wetlands, coastal tidelands and marshes, lakes and ponds, adjacent shore habitats, coastal and offshore areas containing breeding and/or nesting sites or used by migratory and resident water- associated birds for resting and feeding, areas used for scientific study and research concerning fish and wildlife, existing game or wildlife refuges and reserves, habitats containing or supporting unique species or any rare and endangered species defined by the State Fish and Game Commission, rocky intertidal zones, and coastal scrub community associated with coastal bluffs and gullies; (2) riparian area and corridors; (3) bluff, cliffs, and sea-cliffs; (4) wild strawberry habitat; (5) wetlands; and (6) archaeological resources.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Desktop Review and Literature Research
SWCA performed an extensive literature review to gain familiarity with the project and to identify potential sensitive biological features, including CRAs, target flora and fauna species, and wetlands that have the potential to occur in the BSA (Figure 2). The review consisted of a records search of current versions of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2019), the USFWS online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) species list system (USFWS 2019b) (Appendix B), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2019) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Half Moon Bay and Montara 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. The CNDDB search was further refined to a 5-mile search surrounding the project. The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2019a) was queried to identify critical habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species near the BSA. SWCA biologists also reviewed Calflora maps of listed species (Calflora 2019) and compared them against the results of the CNDDB and CNPS searches. All of the listed species and habitats found in the literature review were compiled into a table for use during the field survey (Appendix C), as described in Section 3.2 below.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for San Mateo County (NRCS 2019), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Database (USFWS 2019c), USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2019), USGS topographic quadrangles, and aerial imagery were also reviewed to provide additional information for soils and potential wetlands known to occur in the BSA. Literature pertaining to potential sensitive natural resources and pertinent zoning and land use documents were studied to determine the classification of CRAs as well as the compliance requirements for the project (City of Half Moon Bay 1993, 2018).
3 210 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure 2. Project location map.
4 211 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
3.2 Field Survey
A field survey was conducted on June 10, 2019, by SWCA biologist Jessie Henderson-McBean. The survey included walking transects that covered the property boundary as well as the surrounding 200-foot buffer (see Figure 2). The surveyor assessed the BSA for its potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species, potential wetland features, habitat types, wildlife movement corridors, and indications of wildlife breeding activities. No formal wetland delineation was conducted during the field survey. The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012) was referenced to identify plant species. Project footprints and construction methods were considered to determine whether they could impact a CRA. A list of species observed during the survey is included in Appendix D.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Vegetation and Habitat Types
The BSA consists of asphalted roadways, a residential community, and an undeveloped eucalyptus forest. In total, two vegetation communities were mapped in the BSA (Figure 3) and were defined according to Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986).
The dominant species occurring in the BSA is blue-gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), with an understory of non-native annual grasses and herbs including slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and cut-leafed geranium (Geranium dissectum).
Less than approximately 1 hectare of eucalyptus forest is located within the project area, and approximately less than 0.1 acre would be impacted by the project.
4.1.1.1 EUCALYPTUS FOREST
Eucalyptus forests consist of dense stands of non-native, invasive eucalyptus trees, and are usually devoid of an understory with the exception of a few hardy grasses. Stands generally range from 30 to 55 meters (98 to 180 feet) high and are frequently found in cooler coastal areas and along stream courses.
The eucalyptus forest observed in the BSA is within an area mapped as central coast riparian scrub habitat for the 1993 LCP Habitat Areas and Water Resources Overlay (City of Half Moon Bay 1993). However, species associated with central coast riparian scrub habitat were not observed in the BSA.
During the biological survey, one active red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nest was observed within the eucalyptus stand, and the eucalyptus forest in the BSA has potential to support other nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This vegetation community may also provide roosting opportunities for over-wintering monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). The understory of bark and leaf litter may provide suitable dispersal or estivation habitat for California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii).
5 212 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure 3. Vegetation community map.
6 213 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
1.1.1.3 NON-NATIVE GRASSLAND
Non-native grassland may include a composition of both exotic and native grasses in association with native annual forbs (wildflowers). Germination occurs with the onset of late fall rains, with growth, flowering, and seed-set occurring from winter through spring. With a few exceptions, the plants are dead through the summer-fall dry season, persisting only as seeds (Holland 1986). Common elements include slender wild oat, ripgut brome, Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), cut-leafed geranium (Geranium dissectum), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus).
Non-native grassland mixed with interspersed ornamental vegetation occurs within the vegetated buffer between the northeast and southeast side of the project area. In addition, there is a potentially jurisdictional drainage feature to the east of the project area within the non-native grassland habitat. This habitat may provide suitable dispersal habitat for the California red-legged frog during migration.
4.2 Sensitive Resource Assessment
4.2.1 Special-Status Species
4.2.1.1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
No federally, state-, or CNPS-listed species were observed in the BSA during the field survey. A desktop review (CNPS and CNDDB) produced a total of 47 special-status plant species, including federally and state-listed species and CNPS 1 and 2 ranked species (Appendix E). A description of the special-status species and their potential to occur is included in Appendix C. Of the 47 special-status species that were reviewed, one CNPS-listed plant species, fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea; CNPS 1B.2), was determined to have potential to occur in the BSA. There is low potential for fragrant fritillary to occur within the non-native grassland area in the BSA. The field survey was conducted outside of the appropriate blooming period for this species. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, including a preconstruction survey for fragrant fritillary during the appropriate blooming period, no adverse effects to special-status plants are expected to occur as a result of the project.
No natural communities of concern were identified in the BSA. The field survey revealed a landscape dominated by urban development, a eucalyptus forest, and non-native grassland.
4.2.1.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE
No federal, state, or sensitive animal species were observed in the BSA during the field survey. No USFWS-designated critical habitat is located within the BSA. A total of 12 special-status wildlife species were reviewed for their potential to occur in the BSA. A description of these species and their potential to occur is included in Appendix C. Of the 12 special-status species that were reviewed, three special-status wildlife species were determined to have potential to occur in the BSA: • California red-legged frog: federally threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC); • San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia): federally and state endangered, CDFW fully protected species; and • Monarch butterfly: federal candidate species
7 214 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
4.2.1.2.1 California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonii)
California red-legged frog, a federally threatened and CDFW SSC, occurs in various habitats during its life cycle. Breeding areas include aquatic habitats, such as lagoons, streams, and natural and human-made ponds. The species prefers aquatic habitats with little or no flow, the presence of surface water to at least early June, surface water depths to at least 2.3 feet, and the presence of emergent vegetation (e.g., cattails and bulrush). During periods of wet weather, some individuals may make overland dispersals through adjacent upland habitats of distances up to 1 mile (USFWS 2002). Upland habitats including small mammal burrows and woody debris can also be used as refuge during the summer if water is scarce or unavailable (Jennings and Hayes 1994). California red-legged frogs typically travel between sites and are unaffected by topography and vegetation types during migration. Dispersal habitat makes it possible for California red-legged frogs to locate new breeding and non-breeding sites, and is crucial for conservation of the species.
Ten California red-legged frog occurrences have been recorded within 5 miles of the BSA between 1999 and 2016 (CNDDB 2019). The nearest CNDDB record indicates an adult California red-legged frog was observed approximately 300 meters southwest of the BSA (see Appendix E). The drainage and swale features, and adjacent eucalyptus forest and grassland areas, may provide suitable foraging or dispersal habitat for this species. Based on the abundance of known occurrences within 5 miles of the property boundary and the presence of suitable aquatic breeding and non-breeding habitat within the vicinity of the BSA, there is potential for California red-legged frog to occur in the BSA. However, the developed and disturbed nature within the project area diminishes the quality habitat for this species; therefore, it was determined that there is low potential for California red-legged frog to occur within the project area. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, no substantial adverse effects to California red-legged frog are anticipated to occur as a result of the project.
4.2.1.2.2 San Francisco Gartner Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia)
The federally and state endangered San Francisco garter snake’s historical range is entirely within San Mateo County. The two main components of San Francisco garter snake habitat are: (1) wetlands supporting its prey species (e.g., California red-legged frog and Pacific chorus frog [Pseudacris regilla]); and (2) surrounding uplands that support small mammal burrows used by the snakes for escape cover (USFWS 2006). San Francisco garter snakes inhabit various aquatic habitats, including reservoirs, freshwater marshes, creeks, drainage ditches, ponds, and lakes. Less ideal habitats can also be used by San Francisco garter snake, such as ditches and other waterways, or floating algal or rush mats. Suitable breeding habitat includes shallow marshlands with an abundance of emergent vegetation. Grasslands are also an important upland habitat for this species, as they provide areas for thermoregulation and cover. Prey items for this species include California red-legged frog, Pacific chorus frog, and earthworms. Small mammal burrows are used by San Francisco garter snake during hibernation. During the warm days of summer, most activity occurs during the morning and afternoon. Preferred nocturnal retreats are thought to be holes, especially mammal burrows, crevices, and surface objects (USFWS 2007).
While freshwater emergent wetlands and ponds associated with San Francisco garter snake habitat are absent in the BSA, the drainage and swale features within the BSA may provide marginal foraging or dispersal habitat for this species. Burrows were not observed within the eucalyptus forest due to the thick layer of duff. No burrows were observed in the non-native grassland and landscaped areas in the BSA.
San Francisco garter snake occurrences have been recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. The nearest CNDDB records indicate two San Francisco garter snake adults were captured during a trap study (1988) at a terminal lagoon at the mouth of Pilarcitos Creek, approximately 1.4 miles to the north. The existing drainages may provide marginally suitable foraging habitat for the San Francisco garter snake. However, due to the lack of aquatic habitat that supports breeding populations of their primary prey and lack of
8 215 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation burrows within the project area, it was determined that there is low potential for the San Francisco garter snake to occur within the project area. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, impacts to San Francisco garter snake are not anticipated to occur as a result of the project.
4.2.1.2.3 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is a federal candidate for listing. Coastal California offers hundreds of overwintering sites, from Mendocino County to Baja California, Mexico. The majority of overwintering sites are found at low elevation levels (approximately 60-90m) and south, southwest, or west facing slopes, or in shallow canyons or gullies (Pelton et al. 2016). Monarchs require very specific microclimatic conditions, including projection from wind and cold temperatures, which are often found within sites that consist of a roost of blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), or Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) trees. In addition, habitats must have a source of milkweed and nectar plants as a food source. Monarchs are known to return these overwintering sites annually and begin arriving from September through the first half of October to form fall aggregations. By mid-November stable aggregations are formed that persist through January-February. Monarch butterflies breed at the overwintering site in February-March (Pelton et al 2016).
Monarch butterfly occurrences have been recorded within 0.2 mile of the BSA. Historical CNDDB records (last record in 1998) indicate monarchs were observed within 0.5 mile of the BSA. There is potentially suitable habitat within the eucalyptus forest within and surrounding the project area. However, there is low potential for monarchs to over winter in the eucalyptus forest within the proposed project area due to the lack of a roost of trees that provide protection from the wind and other elements. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5, impacts to the monarch butterfly are not anticipated to occur as a result of the project.
4.2.2 Nesting Migratory Passerine Birds and Raptors
The BSA contains suitable nesting and foraging habitat for avian species protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511 and 3513. Avian species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code observed in the BSA during the field survey include but are not limited to red-tailed hawk (nesting), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Anna’s humming bird (Calypte anna), house finch (Carpodacus cassinii), marsh wren, (Cistothorus palustris), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
The project has the potential to impact potential eggs or young of avian species covered under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. To avoid and minimize potential impacts, it is recommended that avoidance and minimization measures, including preconstruction nesting bird surveys, described in Section 5 be implemented.
4.2.3 Wildlife Habitats
Due to the fragmentation, development, and high level of disturbance and human activity, it is not anticipated that the project will adversely affect a wildlife movement corridor. While the potentially jurisdictional drainage feature may provide low-quality migration habitat for amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, the project will not have any significant impacts to natural habitat and is not expected to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife, nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
9 216 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
4.2.4 Wetlands, Floodplains, and Waters of the U.S.
Two drainage ditch features and one drainage swale were observed within the BSA (see Figure 3). A non- jurisdictional drainage ditch conveys water from the east side of Highway 1 into a drainage swale on the west side of Highway 1 and across the BSA.
Two non-native wetland indicator species, Italian rye grass and California burclover (Medicago polymorpha) were observed within the drainage swale. The City’s Local Coastal Program and CCC generally utilize the USFWS wetland definition, which defines wetlands using a “one parameter definition.” The “one parameter definition” requires identification of only a single parameter (hydric soils, dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and/or wetland hydrology) to establish wetland conditions. Therefore, areas within the swale feature where hydrophytic vegetation occurs may be considered jurisdictional by the CCC.
A potentially jurisdictional drainage feature runs east to west through the BSA has a clearly visible ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which generally defines the extent of USACE jurisdiction, as well as defined bed and banks and riparian vegetation, generally defining the extent of CDFW jurisdiction (USACE 2008). The drainage channel OHWM is approximately1- to 4-feetwide by 3-feet deep with incised banks. The drainage may have connectivity to the Pacific Ocean, however, the full length of the drainage was not walked to confirm connectivity. The species observed within the potentially jurisdictional drainage ditch were similar to that of the non-native grassland habitat an included slender wild oat, ripgut brome, Italian rye grass, and red valerian (Centranthus ruber).
4.2.4.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The topography within the BSA is nearly flat (<5% grade). The elevation ranges from approximately 155 to 165 feet above mean sea level. Results from the NRCS Web Soil Survey yielded two soil types within the BSA: Botella clay loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, Major Land Resource Area [MLRA] 14), and Watsonville clay loam, nearly level. No soil pits were dug or examined during the field investigation.
4.2.5 Coastal Resource Areas
Based on the literature review and field survey observations, CRAs were observed throughout the BSA. Observed CRAs include habitats containing or supporting unique species or any rare and endangered species. Provided below is a description of the CRAs and the potential for impacts.
4.2.5.1 RIPARIAN AREAS AND CORRIDORS
Section 18.38.020 of the City Code defines riparian areas and corridors as follows:
Any area of land bordering a perennial or intermittent stream or their tributaries, or around a lake or other body of fresh water, including its banks and at least up to the highest point of an obvious channel or enclosure of a body of water. Riparian corridors are the areas between the limits of riparian vegetation, where limits are determined by vegetative coverage, at least fifty percent of which is comprised of a combination of the following plant species: red alder, jaumea, pickleweed, big leaf maple, narrow-leaf cattail, arroyo willow, broadleaf cattail, horsetail, creek dogwood, black cottonwood, and box elder.
Although drainages and swales were observed within the BSA, the drainage ditches and swales do not meet the definition of a riparian area or corridor under Section 18.38.020 of the City Code. Therefore, the drainage ditches do not meet the criteria for a riparian area or riparian corridor CRA.
10 217 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
4.2.5.2 HABITATS CONTAINING OR SUPPORTING UNIQUE SPECIES OR ANY RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Various habitats in the BSA have the potential to support unique species and/or special-status species. The distribution of special-status species with potential to occur in the BSA is discussed in Section 4.4.1. Unique species, including raptors, California red-legged frog, sea mammals, California wild strawberry (Fragaria californica), and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) have been identified by the City as having “scientific or historic value, few indigenous habitats, or some characteristics that draw attention or are locally uncommon” (City of Half Moon Bay 1993).
The eucalyptus forest and non-native grassland habitat observed in the BSA (see Figure 3) have the potential to support unique and/or special-status species such as California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, and monarch butterfly, as well as suitable nesting and foraging habitat for migratory birds and raptors. Impacts to these habitats would occur through the removal of eucalyptus trees and non-native grasses to accommodate the proposed project. However, the project is not expected to have significant impacts to unique, rare, or endangered species or their habitats as the habitats within the project area only provide marginally suitable habitat for these species and the species were not observed during the biological survey. The avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 5 are recommended to avoid potential impacts to unique, rare, or endangered species and their habitats.
5 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES
The goal of this BRE is to identify sensitive biological resources in the BSA and to provide avoidance and minimization measures that will prevent the project activities from resulting in substantial adverse effects on special-status species, riparian habitats or other sensitive communities, federally protected wetlands, or wildlife movement corridors. The following 16 avoidance and minimization measures are designed to prevent the project from having a potentially significant biological impact. 1. Prior to the start of the project, all construction crew members will attend an environmental awareness training presented by a qualified biologist. A training brochure describing special- status species, project avoidance and avoidance and minimization measures, and key contacts, and potential consequences of impacts to special-status species and potentially jurisdictional water features will be distributed to the crew members during the training.
2. Disturbance to vegetation should be kept to the minimum necessary to complete the project activities, provided there is no feasible alternative. To minimize impacts to vegetation, a qualified biologist shall work with the contractor to designate the work area and any staging areas as well as delineate areas that should be avoided with exclusionary fencing (i.e., high visibility orange construction fencing or silt fence). Areas that would be identified to avoid will include the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
3. Access to the project area shall be from Magnolia Street to minimize impacts to existing vegetation within and around the property boundary.
4. If any wildlife is encountered during project activities, said wildlife should be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and a biologist would be able to relocate the wildlife outside of the project limits. All listed wildlife species will be allowed to leave the work area of their own accord and without harassment. Animals should not be picked up or moved in any way.
5. Any and all spoils (e.g., dirt, debris, construction-related materials) generated during project activities shall be placed where they cannot enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
11 218 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
6. All exposed soils in the work area (resulting from project activities) shall be stabilized immediately following the completion of work to prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices, such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel or rock-lined drainages, water check bars, and broadcast straw, can be used. Straw wattles, if used, shall be made of biodegradable fabric (e.g., burlap) and free of monofilament netting. At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
7. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grubbing or grading) should occur during the dry season (June 1 to October 15) to facilitate avoidance of California red-legged frog. Regardless of the season, no construction shall occur within 24 hours following a significant rain event (greater than 1/4 inch in a 24-hour period). Following a significant rain event and the 24-hour drying-out period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog prior to the restart of any project activities.
8. To protect potential burrows, no soil shall be stockpiled on the ground unless it is a paved surface.
9. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators should be properly contained, removed, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, trash/construction debris should be removed from work areas.
10. To assist in excluding California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from the work area, an exclusion fence should be installed around the work area prior to the commencement of construction activities. Exclusion fencing should be silt-fence type fencing or equivalent, and should not include poly mesh fencing or other similar fencing that could entrap or snag reptiles, amphibians, or other small animals. Exclusion fencing should be installed with the fence stakes placed on the inside of the fencing (closest to the project boundary) to prevent frogs or snakes from using the stakes to maneuver over the fence. The fencing should be maintained until all work has been completed.
11. The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity should be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. Routes and boundaries should be clearly demarcated, and these areas should be outside of the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
12. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas should occur at least 100 feet from the potentially jurisdictional drainages. The owner should ensure that contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of work, the Owner should ensure that there is a plan to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers should be informed of the importance of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.
13. Tree removal activities should be conducted outside of nesting bird season. However, if project activities are conducted during nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), preconstruction nest surveys should be conducted in and near the project (within 250 feet for large raptors and 100 feet for all other birds) by a qualified biologist. If nesting is identified during the preconstruction survey, then the project should be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct take of the identified nests, eggs, and/or young.
14. Tree removal activities should be conducted outside of the over-wintering season for monarch butterfly (roughly mid-October to March). If tree removal is required during the over-wintering
12 219 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
season, removal shall not take place when temperatures are 55 degrees Fahrenheit and below (when monarch butterflies are clustered in roost trees due to low temperatures).
15. A biological monitor should conduct a preconstruction survey prior to project work. In addition, the biological monitor should perform a survey during the flowering season for fragrant fritillary to ensure that the species does not occur within the project area and no additional mitigations would be required.
16. For any project impacts to potentially jurisdictional wetland/water features (e.g., culvert installation), a formal wetland delineation should be conducted and applicable wetland/waters permitting performed with the appropriate agencies.
13 220 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
6 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R. Patterson, T. Rosatti (editors). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Calflora. 2019. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation (Calflora). Berkeley, California. Available at: http://www.calflora.org/topMission.html. Accessed June 18, 2019.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). California Native Plant Society. Available at: http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi- bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Accessed June 18, 2019.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2019. Rarefind data for the Half Moon Bay, Montara Mountain, Woodside 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangles.
City of Half Moon Bay. 1993. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, Chapter 3: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Amended 1993.
———. 2018. Half Moon Bay Municipal Code, Title 18: Zoning.
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.
Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Concern in California. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.
Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S.H. Black. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. 40+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the United States. Robert W. Lichvar and Shawn M. McColley (editors). Hanover, New Hampshire: ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Soil Survey GIS Data. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Accessed June 17, 2019.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
———. 2006. San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) 5-year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office.
———. 2007. Endangered Species Accounts: San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia).
———. 2019a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/. Accessed June 16, 2019.
14 221 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
———. 2019b. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC). Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed June 16, 2019.
———. 2019c. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed June 18, 2019.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. National Hydrography Dataset GIS Data. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed June 18, 2019.
15 222
APPENDIX A
Photo-Documentation
223
224 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Photograph A-1. View facing northwest showing the project location and adjacent eucalyptus forest.
Photograph A-2. View facing northwest from the paved bike path in the southeast corner of the proposed project area.
A-1 225 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Photograph A-3. View of culvert outlet from underneath footbridge to the northeast of the project. View looking east along potentially jurisdictional drainage ditch.
A-2 226 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Photo A-4. View facing northwest at the eucalyptus forest Photograph A-5. View of active red-tailed hawk nest within the project area. within the project area, facing northwest.
A-3 227 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Photograph A-6. View of red valerian in the potentially jurisdictional drainage ditch, north side of the project.
A-4 228
APPENDIX B
USFWS Records Results
229
230 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-1 231 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-2 232 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-3 233 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-4 234 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-5 235 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-6 236 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-7 237 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-8 238 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-9 239 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-10 240 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-11 241 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-12 242 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-13 243 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-14 244 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-15 245 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-16 246 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-17 247 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
B-18 248
APPENDIX C
CNDDB and CNPS Record List and Consideration for Potential Occurrence in the Biological Study Area
249
250 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Table C-1. Special-Status Species Considered for Potential Occurrence in the Biological Study Area
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
Natural Communities Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Marsh habitat supporting herbaceous, suffrutescent, salt- -- None: There is no suitable habitat for the species in the tolerant hydrophytes often active in summer and dormant in BSA. winter. Characteristic species include Jaumea carnosa, Limonium californicum, and Frankenia salina. Developed around Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay, San Francisco Bay, Elkhorn Slough, and Morro Bay. Plants Anderson’s manzanita Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in openings and edges --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Arctostaphylos andersonii) among broad-leafed upland forest, chaparral, and North Coast not observed during field survey. Impacts to this species coniferous forest. Elevation: 60–760 meters. Flower season: are not expected. No CNDDB occurrences recorded November–May. within 5 miles of the project. arcuate bush-mallow Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in chaparral and cismontane --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Malacothamnus arcuatus) woodland. Elevation: 15–355 meters. Flower season: April– not observed during the field survey, which was September. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. bent-flowered fiddleneck Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Amsinckia lunaris) woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 3–500 which was conducted during the appropriate bloom meters. Flower season: March–June period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. Blasdale's bent grass Perennial rhizomatous herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Agrostis blasdalei) coastal dunes, coastal prairie. Elevation: 5–150 meters. Flower which was conducted during the appropriate bloom season: May–July. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. chaparral ragwort Annual herb occurs in dry coastal areas, particularly alkali flats. --/--/2B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey. No (Senecio aphanactis) Elevation: 2–706 meters. Flower season: January-April. CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. Choris' popcorn-flower Annual herb occurs in grassy, moist places; ephemeral --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. drainages; coastal scrub; and chaparral. Elevation: 0–650 which was conducted during the appropriate bloom pycnostachyus) meters. Flower season: March–June. period. Five CNDDB occurrences have been recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. coast lily Perennial herb occurs in coastal prairie or scrub, peatland, and --/--/1B.1 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Lilium maritimum) gaps in closed-cone-pine forest. Elevation: 0–150 meters. which was conducted during the appropriate bloom Flower season: May– July. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project.
C-1 251 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
coast yellow leptosiphon Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal prairie. --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Leptosiphon croceus) Elevation: 10–150 meters. Flower season: April–May. not observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. coastal marsh milk-vetch Perennial herb that occurs in coastal marshes, seeps, and --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. adjacent sand along the northern and central California coast. not observed during the field survey, which was pycnostachyus) Elevation: 0–150 meters. Flower season: April–October. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. There is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 2/5 mile of the BSA. coastal triquetrella Moss occurs in coastal bluff scrub or coastal scrub. Elevation: --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Triquetrella californica) 10–100 meters. not observed during the field survey. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Crystal Springs lessingia Annual herb occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range for (Lessingia arachnoidea) and valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 60–200 meters. this species. Species not observed during the field Flower season: July–October. survey. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Davidson's bush-mallow Perennial deciduous herb occurs in chaparral, cismontane --/--/1B.2 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range for (Malacothamnus davidsonii) woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland; usually occurs this species. Species not observed during the field in non-wetlands, but occasionally found in wetlands. Elevation: survey. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles 185–855 meters. Flower season: June–January. of the BSA. Dudley's lousewort Perennial herb that occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. No (Pedicularis dudleyi) North Coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill species observed. Impacts to this species are not grasslands. Elevation: 60–900 meters. Flower season: April– expected. June. fragrant fritillary Bulbiferous herb occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal --/--/1B.2 Low: Species not observed during the field survey; (Fritillaria liliacea) prairies, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; however, the survey was conducted just outside of the equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands, occasionally bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within associated with serpentine. Elevation: 3–410 meters. Flower 5 miles of the BSA. Non-native grassland habitat in the season: February–April. BSA may provide low quality habitat for this species. Franciscan onion Perennial bulbiferous herb occurs on dry hillsides. Elevation: 1– --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Allium peninsulare var. 60 meters. Flower season: May–June. not observed during the field survey, which was franciscanum) conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. Franciscan thistle Perennial herb occurs in broadleafed upland forest, coastal --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Cirsium andrewsii) bluff scrub, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 0–150 which was conducted during the appropriate bloom meters. Flower season: March–July. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA.
C-2 252 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
Hall's bush-mallow Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in chaparral and coastal --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Malacothamnus hallii) scrub. Elevation: 10–760 meters. Flower season: May– not observed during the field survey, which was September. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Hickman's cinquefoil Perennial herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone FE/SE/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Potentilla hickmanii) coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, and marshes and not observed during the field survey, which was swamps. Elevation: 10–149 meters. Flower season: April– conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No August CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Hillsborough chocolate lily Perennial bulbiferous herb occurs in cismontane woodland and --/--/1B.1 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range for (Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana) valley and foothill grassland (affinity to serpentine soil). this species. Species not observed during the field Elevation: 150–150 meters. Flower season: March–April survey. Indian Valley bush-mallow Perennial deciduous shrub occurs in chaparral and cismontane --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Malacothamnus aboriginum) woodland. Elevation: 150–1700 meters. Flower season: April– outside of the known elevation range for this species. October. Species not observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. island rock lichen Foliose lichen found on the bark and wood of hardwoods and --/--/1B.3 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Hypogymnia schizidiata) conifers in closed-cone coniferous forests and chaparral. outside of the known elevation range for this species. Currently only known from the Channel Islands and Baja Species not observed during the field survey. California. Elevation: 360–405 meters. johnny-nip Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal prairie. --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Castilleja ambigua var. Elevation: 0–100 meters. Flower season: May- August. not observed during the field survey, which was ambigua) conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Kellogg's horkelia Perennial herb occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Horkelia cuneata var. sericea) chaparral, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 10–200 not observed during the field survey, which was meters. Flower season: April–September. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. There is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 1/10 mile of the BSA. Kings Mountain manzanita Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in broad-leafed upland --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Arctostaphylos regismontana) forest, chaparral, and North Coast coniferous forest. Elevation: outside of the known elevation range for this species. 305–730 meters. Flower season: January–April Species not observed during the field survey. There is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 2/5 mile of the BSA.
C-3 253 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
Marin checker lily Perennial bulbiferous herb occurs in occurs in coastal bluff --/--/1B.1 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Fritillaria lanceolata var. scrub, coastal prairie, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 15–150 which was conducted during the appropriate bloom tristulis) meters. Flower season: February–May period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Marin western flax Annual herb associated with serpentine grasslands. Elevation: --/--/1B.1 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Hesperolinon congestum) 0–200 meters in the northwestern San Francisco Bay Area. which was conducted during the appropriate bloom Flower season: April–August. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. marsh microseris Perennial herb occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Microseris paludosa) cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill which was conducted during the appropriate bloom grassland. Elevation: 5–300 meters. Flower season: April–June period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Montara manzanita Perennial evergreen shrub occurs in chaparral and coastal --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat and it is (Arctostaphylos montaraensis) scrub. Elevation: 150–500 meters. Flower season: January– outside of the known elevation range for this species. March. Species not observed during the field survey. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the project. Oregon polemonium Perennial herb occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and --/--/2.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Polemonium carneum) lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation: 0–1,830 meters. which was conducted during the appropriate bloom Flower season: April–September. period. The most recent CNDDB occurrence within 5 miles of the BSA was recorded in 1916. Ornduff's meadowfoam Annual herb recorded only in one field on the San Mateo --/--1B.1 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Limnanthes douglasii ssp. County coast. It is the only known site where the four-part which was conducted during the appropriate bloom ornduffii) meadowfoam naturally appears. Elevation: 10–20 meters. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles Flower season: November–May. of the project. pappose tarplant Annual herb occurs in valley and foothill grassland, marshes --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Centromadia parryi ssp. and swamps, meadows and seeps, coastal prairie, and which was conducted during the appropriate bloom parryi) chaparral. Elevation: 2–420 meters. Flower season: May– period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles November. of the BSA. perennial goldfields Perennial herb from Asteraceae family occurs in coastal bluff --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Lasthenia californica ssp. scrub, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Elevation: 6–750 not observed during the field survey, which was Macrantha) meters. Flower season: January–November. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Point Reyes bird's-beak Annual herb (hemiparisitic) occurs in marshes and swamps --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Cordylanthus maritimus) (coastal salt). Elevation: 0–10 meters. Flower season: June– not observed during the field survey, which was October. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA.
C-4 254 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
Point Reyes horkelia Perennial herb occurs in coastal dunes, coastal prairie, and --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Horkelia marinensis) coastal scrub. Elevation: 5–350 meters. Flower season: May– which was conducted during the appropriate bloom September. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. rose leptosiphon Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub. Elevation: 0–100 --/--/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Leptosiphon rosaceus) meters. Flower season: April–July. not observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. There is one CNDDB occurrence recorded within 80 meters of the BSA. saline clover Annual herb occurs in marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Trifolium hydrophilum) valley and foothill grasslands (mesic and alkaline soils). not observed during the field survey, which was Elevation: 0–300 meters. Flower season: April–June. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. San Francisco Bay spineflower Annual herb occurs on coastal bluff scrub, dunes, prairie, and --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Chorizanthe cuspidata var. scrub. Elevation: 3–215 meters. Flower season: April–July. not observed during the field survey, which was cuspidata) conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. San Francisco campion Perennial herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Silene verecunda ssp. prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. which was conducted during the appropriate bloom verecunda) Elevation: 30–645 meters. Flower season: March–June. period. The nearest known CNDDB occurrence was recorded approximately 1 mile from the BSA in 1900. San Francisco collinsia Annual herb occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest and --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Collinsia multicolor) coastal scrub (affinity to serpentine soil). Elevation: 30–250 not observed during the field survey, which was meters. Flower season: March–May. conducted during the appropriate bloom period. The most recent known CNDDB occurrence within 5 miles of the BSA was recorded in 1893. San Francisco owl's-clover Annual herb occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Triphysaria floribunda) and foothill grassland (affinity to serpentine soil). Elevation: 10– which was conducted during the appropriate bloom 160 meters. Flower season: April–June. period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. San Mateo thorn mint Annual herb occurs in serpentine soils. Elevation 150-300 FE/SE/1B.1 None: Species not observed during the field survey, (Acanthomintha duttonii) meters. Flower season: April-June which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA.
C-5 255 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
San Mateo woolly sunflower Perennial herb occurs in cismontane woodland. Elevation: 45– FE/SE/1B.1 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Eriophyllum latilobum) 150 meters. Flower season: May–June. not observed during the field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. Scouler's catchfly Perennial her occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie, and --/--/2B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri) valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 0-300 meters. Flower not observed during the field survey, which was season: June- August conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. short-leaved evax Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes. --/--/1B.2 None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Hesperevax sparsiflora var. Elevation: 0–215 meters. Flower season: March–June. not observed during the field survey, which was brevifolia) conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. western leatherwood Perennial deciduous shrub that occurs in broad-leafed upland --/--/1B.2 None: Species not observed during the field survey. No (Dirca occidentalis) forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, riparian forest, and project. riparian woodland. Generally north or northeast facing slopes, mixed-evergreen forest to chaparral, generally in fog belt. Elevation: 50–395 meters. Flower season: January–April. white-rayed pentachaeta Annual herb occurs in cismontane woodland and valley and FE/SE/1B.1 None: BSA is slightly outside of the known elevation (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) foothill grassland. Elevation: 35–620 meters. Flower season: range for this species. Species not observed during the March–May. field survey, which was conducted during the appropriate bloom period. No CNDDB occurrences recorded within 5 miles of the BSA. woodland woolythreads Annual herb occurs in broad-leafed upland forest, chaparral, --/--/1B.2 None: BSA is outside of the known elevation range for (Monolopia gracilens) cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and this species. Species not observed during the field valley and foothill grassland. Elevation: 100–1,200 meters. survey, which was conducted during the appropriate Flower season: March–July. bloom period. Amphibians California giant salamander Endemic to California. Uses a wide range of habitats including --/--/-- None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat. Species (Dicamptodon ensatus) temperate forests, rivers, freshwater lakes, and freshwater not observed during the field survey. In 1997, there was marshes. a CNDDB occurrence approximately 80 meters way from the propose project site.
C-6 256 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
California red-legged frog Inhabit permanent and temporary pools, streams, freshwater FT/SSC Low: Suitable dispersal or estivation habitat for this (Rana draytonii) seeps, and marshes in lowlands and foothills occurring from species occurs in the vicinity of the project. The nearest sea level to 6,500 feet. Use adjacent upland habitat for foraging known CNDDB occurrence was recorded within and refuge. Breed during the wet season from December approximately 300 meters of the BSA. through March. Lay between 300 and 4,000 eggs in a large cluster that are attached to plants near the water surface. Eggs hatch after about 4 weeks and undergo metamorphosis in 4 to 7 months. Reptiles San Francisco garter snake Uses a wide range of habitats; prefers grassland or wetland FE/SE, FP Low: Potential dispersal habitat for this species occurs (Thamnophis sirtalis near ponds, marshes, and sloughs; may overwinter in upland in the vicinity of the project. The nearest known CNDDB tetrataenia) areas away from water. occurrence was recorded approximately 1.4 miles north of the BSA at the mouth of Pilarcitos Creek. Birds American peregrine falcon Forages primarily on birds in urban and natural environments MBTA/FP None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Falco peregrinus anatum) including pasturelands, marshes, mudflats, and tidal zones that foraging habitat. attract large concentrations of shorebirds and other water birds. Nests almost exclusively on protected ledges of high cliffs, but may also use manmade structures, such as tall buildings and bridges, and will occasionally use tree or snag cavities or old nests of other raptors Burrowing owl (Athene Occurs in open, dry, annual or perennial grasslands, deserts MBTA/SSC cunicularia) and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation marbled murrelet Pacific seabird winters and forages at sea and breeds in FT, MBTA/SE None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Brachyramphus marmoratus) coniferous forests near coasts. Nest on large horizontal foraging habitat. branches high up in trees that are generally greater than 200 years old. saltmarsh common Frequents low, dense vegetation near water. Nest usually --/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or yellowthroat placed on or within 8 centimeters (3 inches) of ground. May be foraging habitat. (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) over water, in emergent aquatic vegetation, dense shrubs, or other dense growth. western snowy plover Shores, peninsulas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries, and FT, MBTA/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Charadrius alexandrinus rivers along the Pacific Coast. Breeding sites entail coastal foraging habitat. nivosus) beaches above the high tide line, sand spits, dune-backed beaches, and river bars. Mammals American badger Occurs in herbaceous, shrub, and open stages of most habitats --/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or (Taxidea taxus) with dry, friable soils. Uncommon, permanent resident found foraging habitat, and no suitable burrows were observed throughout most of California. in the BSA.
C-7 257 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Legal Status Species Name General Habitat Description Federal/State/ Potential for Occurrence CNPS Status
San Francisco dusky-footed Medium-sized rodents found in grasslands, scrub, and wooded --/SSC None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or woodrat areas throughout the San Francisco Bay area. foraging habitat, and no middens were observed during (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) the field survey. Fish steelhead – central California Clear, cool water with abundant in-stream cover, well-vegetated FT/-- None: BSA does not contain suitable nesting or coast DPS stream margins, relatively stable water flow, and a 1:1 pool-to- foraging habitat. (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) riffle ratio. Invertebrates Monarch butterfly Occurs along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja FC/-- Low: Suitable dispersal habitat occurs within the vicinity (Danaus plexippus) California, Mexico. Winter roosts in wind protected tree groves of the project. In addition, there is a historical CNDDB (eucalyptus, Monterey pine and cypress), with nectar and water occurrence within 0.5 mile of the project. This species sources nearby. was not observed during the biological survey. San Bruno elfin butterfly Inhabits rocky outcroppings and cliffs coastal scrub within the FE/-- None: BSA does not contain suitable habitat, or the (Callophrys mossii bayensis) San Francisco peninsula area. BSA is outside the known range of the species.
Sources: Baldwin et al. (2012), CNDDB (2019), USFWS (2019). Status Codes: -- = No status Federal: FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate; MBTA = Protected by Migratory Bird Treaty Act State: SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SR = State Rare; SSC = California Species of Special Concern; FP = Fully Protected California Native Plant Society (CNPS): List 1B = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere List 3 = Plants about which more information is needed List 4 = Watch list of plants of limited distribution CNPS Threat Code: _.1 = Seriously endangered in California (more than 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) _.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20–80% occurrences threatened) _.3 = Not very endangered I California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Potential for Occurrence Ratings: None = No potential for the species or habitat to occur due to lack of suitable habitat in the BSA. Low = Species has been mapped within 5 miles of the BSA, but record is old/unreliable, the appropriate habitat is not present, or the record is far from the project area. Moderate = Records have been mapped near the project area and/or suitable habitat is present, but records are old or far from the project area. High = Species has high likelihood of presence in the BSA, has been mapped in close proximity to the project area, and suitable habitat is present.
C-8 258
APPENDIX D
Species Observed During the Field Survey
259
260 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Table D-1 Species Observed During the Field Survey
Scientific Name Common Name Native Species Status/Notes
PLANT SPECIES* Angiosperms (Eudicots) Anacardiaceae Sumac Family -- -- Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Yes -- Asteraceae Sunflower Family -- -- Delairea ordata German Ivy No -- Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue No -- Fabaceae Pea Family -- -- Medicago polymorpha California burclover No -- Vicia sp. unknown vetch Unknown -- Geraniaceae Geranium Family -- -- Geranium dissectum cut leaved geranium No -- Myrtaceae Myrtle Family -- -- Eucalyptus globulus blue-gum eucalyptus No -- Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family -- -- Rumex crispus Curly dock No -- Rosaceae Rose Family -- -- Rubus ursinus California blackberry Yes -- Tropaeolaceae Nasturtium Family -- -- Tropaeolum majus garden nasturtium No -- Valerianaceae Valerian Family -- -- Centranthus ruber red valerian No -- Angiosperms (monocots) Poaceae Grass Family -- -- Avena barbata slender wild oats No -- Bromus diandrus ripgut brome No -- Festuca perennis Italian rye grass No -- WILDLIFE SPECIES Avian Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Yes -- Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Yes -- Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Yes -- Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Yes -- Cistothorus palustris Marsh wren Yes -- Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Yes --
* Data from Baldwin et al. (2012).
D-1 261 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
This page intentionally left blank.
D-2 262
APPENDIX E
Special-Status Species Records
263
264 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure D-1. CNDDB plant map.
E-1 265 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Figure D-2. CNDDB wildlife map.
E-2 266 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Table D-1. California Natural Diversity Database Records Results
Latin Name Common Name EONDX ACCURACY SITEDATE FEDLIST CALLIST RPLANTRANK
Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita 56346 specific area 20130105 None None 1B.2 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus coastal marsh milk-vetch 49631 2/5 mile 20040823 None None 1B.2 Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl 114464 1/10 mile 20171120 None None Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee 100351 1 mile 19530328 None None Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet 99414 nonspecific area 20110722 Threatened Endangered Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet 99411 nonspecific area 2007XXXX Threatened Endangered Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover 104890 80 meters 20160503 Threatened None Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population 12310 2/5 mile 19980105 None None Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population 99755 1/5 mile 19980105 None None Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population 13262 1/5 mile 19980105 None None Danaus plexippus pop. 1 monarch - California overwintering population 22934 1/5 mile 20121028 None None Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander 98609 80 meters 19971217 None None Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon 70079 80 meters 20070515 Delisted Delisted Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily 26561 specific area 20160322 None None 1B.2 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 59824 2/5 mile 19900620 None None Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 13461 1/5 mile 19900602 None None Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 24807 1/5 mile 19900701 None None Horkelia cuneata var. sericea Kellogg's horkelia 64647 1/10 mile 20000425 None None 1B.1 Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha perennial goldfields 103072 specific area 20150409 None None 1B.1 Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon 95234 80 meters 20140521 None None 1B.1 Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads 94197 nonspecific area 20130516 None None 1B.2 Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 70792 80 meters 20070910 None None Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 26269 1/5 mile 19780321 None None Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS 30141 specific area 19790920 Threatened None Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS 79277 nonspecific area 20000903 Threatened None Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus steelhead - central California coast DPS 41534 80 meters 19990415 Threatened None Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower 57049 specific area 20130611 None None 1B.2 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower 94297 nonspecific area 20100604 None None 1B.2 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower 94290 specific area 20070424 None None 1B.2 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower 94292 specific area 20130520 None None 1B.2 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcornflower 94281 specific area 20070731 None None 1B.2 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 56076 1/5 mile 20040607 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 33319 specific area 20070919 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 78886 specific area 20100305 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 70285 specific area 20061011 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 41133 80 meters 19990507 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 48448 80 meters 20020711 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 68205 80 meters 20070111 Threatened None
E-3 267 564 Magnolia Street Project Biological Resource Evaluation
Latin Name Common Name EONDX ACCURACY SITEDATE FEDLIST CALLIST RPLANTRANK
Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 63554 80 meters 20010618 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 42675 nonspecific area 20110913 Threatened None Rana draytonii California red-legged frog 105601 1/10 mile 20160927 Threatened None Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion 60254 1 mile 19000317 None None 1B.2 Taxidea taxus American badger 114381 nonspecific 20170701 None None Taxidea taxus American badger 114377 80 meters 20180618 None None Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27531 specific area 20111115 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93211 nonspecific area 19510318 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93247 1/5 mile 20040804 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27538 nonspecific area 20140328 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27537 1/5 mile 19870505 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 14768 nonspecific area 20130904 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92745 specific area 20120720 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27497 specific area 20080413 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92750 1/10 mile 19380805 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93271 1/5 mile 1983XXXX Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92595 1/10 mile 20060815 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27539 specific area 20120416 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92603 80 meters 20110505 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 14767 specific area 20130703 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 72663 specific area 20080421 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93262 1/5 mile 19791226 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27540 nonspecific area 20060927 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92744 80 meters 20070413 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 92544 1/10 mile 20070812 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 27485 1/5 mile 198XXXXX Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 55709 80 meters 20040510 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93280 1/10 mile 20070426 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 64439 specific area 20060215 Endangered Endangered Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake 93282 1/10 mile 20070814 Endangered Endangered
E-4 268 269
APPENDIX A3
Addendum to the Biological Resources Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California
270
271 564 Magnolia Street Project BRE Addendum
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Brittany Cozzolino, Associate Planner City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Date: January 30, 2020
Re: Addendum to the Biological Resource Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California.
Dear Brittney Cozzolino:
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has prepared this Addendum for the City of Half Moon Bay (City) for the Biological Resource Evaluation (BRE) for the 564 Magnolia Street Project (project) located in San Mateo County, California. At the request of the City, SWCA conducted a biological resources analysis for portions of the 564 Magnolia Street project area that were not covered under the Biological Resource Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project Report prepared by SWCA in June 2019. These additional project areas include the parcel at 574 Magnolia Street (APN 064-342-230) which is immediately adjacent to 564 Magnolia Street, and a proposed fire truck turn-around located immediately in front of 564 and 574 Magnolia Street (Figure 1). As such, these additional project areas occur in the same habitat and biological setting as described in the June 2019 BRE. The purpose of this addendum is to assess the additional project areas and determine if these new areas are consistent with the June 2019 Biological Resources Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project.
Methods
A field reconnaissance survey was conducted on January 22, 2020, by SWCA Biologist Chennie Castañon. Field survey methods used during the January 2020 survey were the same as those used in the June 2019 survey, and included walking meandering transects throughout the entire property at 574 Magnolia Street and the fire truck turnaround, as well as a surrounding 200-foot buffer around these new areas (Figure 1). Because the June 2019 report included a survey of biological resources within 200-feet of the 564 Magnolia Street property, the entire adjacent property at 574 Magnolia Street and the adjacent fire truck turnaround were, by proxy, also surveyed and assessed as part of the June 2019 report. The surveyor assessed the additional project areas for their potential to support special- status plant and wildlife species, potential wetland features, habitat types, wildlife movement corridors, and indications of wildlife breeding activities. No soil pits were dug during the January 2020 site survey, and no wetland delineation was performed as part of the site survey.
A-1 272 564 Magnolia Street Project BRE Addendum
Figure 1: Project Location Map
Results
Project Area and Description
Consistent with the June 2019 BRE report, the additional project areas for 574 Magnolia Street and the fire truck turnaround are located within a eucalyptus grove at 574 Magnolia Street and are surrounded by residential/developed and non-native grassland areas. The additional project areas include construction of a new single-family residence 574 Magnolia Street, and the construction of one fire truck turnaround at the easternmost extent of Magnolia Street. As described in the June 2019 BRE, a drainage ditch extends through the work areas in an east–west direction for approximately 222 feet along the south side of Magnolia Street and on the north side of APNs 064-342-220 and 064- 342-230 (564 and 574 Magnolia Street, respectively). This drainage feature is fed by a double culvert (i.e., two corrugated pipes) to the east that pass under a pedestrian bridge that is part of the Naomi Patridge Trail (pedestrian walkway).
A-2 273 564 Magnolia Street Project BRE Addendum
Construction of the new single-family residence at 574 Magnolia Street (APN 064-342-230), which abuts and is immediately adjacent to 564 Magnolia Street, includes an approximate 28-foot × 60-foot × 124-foot lot for a single- family home (1,845-square feet) that will include a paved driveway. Construction of the residence driveway will require installation of a culvert to cross over the drainage ditch that runs along the south side of Magnolia Street. However, this driveway will be installed as part of the construction of the fire truck turnaround (described below). The driveway and culvert are the only proposed frontage improvements and will not include construction of curb, gutter, or sidewalk. As is the case with 564 Magnolia Street, construction of the 574 Magnolia Street residence will require the removal of eucalyptus trees within the work area.
Construction of one fire truck turnaround includes an approximate 60 × 50-foot area located at the easternmost extent of Magnolia Street (i.e., approximately 90 feet west of Highway 1). This area is surrounded by residential property on the north edge, a combination of disturbed and non-native grassland areas on the east side, a eucalyptus grove on the south side, and paved roadway (i.e., Magnolia Street) to the west. Construction of 574 Magnolia Street will require the installation of a driveway over the ephemeral drainage ditch that extends along the southern edge of Magnolia Street. However, the fire truck turnaround located primarily in front of 564 and 574 Magnolia Street, will also require that the same drainage ditch be culverted beginning from the east side where the pedestrian bridge of the Naomi Patridge Trail is located, and extending along the south side of Magnolia Street. This culverted area planned for the fire truck turnaround will encompass all of the frontage area for 564 and 574 Magnolia Street; as such, it will encompass and essentially become part of the driveway design for both residences). The area impacted by installation of the fire truck turnaround will primarily consist of existing paved roadway, compacted / disturbed earth, and non- native grassland.
In summary, the additional project areas at 574 Magnolia Street and the fire truck turnaround in front of 574 and 564 Magnolia Street occur in the same location and habitat as that surveyed and analyzed in the 2019 BRE.
Habitat and Sensitive Recourses
Consistent with the June report, habitat within and surrounding the work areas consist of asphalted roadways, a residential community, and an undeveloped eucalyptus forest with associated non-native grassland. When considered together, the work areas for 574 Magnolia Street and the fire truck turnaround contain the same dominant species as described in the 2019 BRE: invasive blue-gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), with an understory of non-native annual grasses and herbs including slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and cut-leafed geranium (Geranium dissectum). However, as described above, the fire truck turnaround area is surrounded by residential property to the north, a combination of disturbed and non-native grassland areas on the east side, the eucalyptus grove to the south, and paved roadway (i.e., Magnolia Street) to the west. The fire truck turnaround area will be constructed within an area that consist of existing paved roadway (Magnolia Street), compacted and disturbed dirt shoulder, non-native grassland, and the drainage ditch extending along the south side of Magnolia Street (which will be culverted to accommodate the width of the fire truck turnaround).
Special-Status Plants
No federally, state-, or CNPS-listed species were observed in the work areas during the January 2020 survey. For the purpose of this Addendum, January 2020 survey results were consistent with the June 2019 BRE that of the 47 special-status species that were reviewed within a 5-mile radius surrounding the survey area, one CNPS-listed plant species, fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea; CNPS 1B.2), was determined to have low potential to occur in the work areas. Therefore, with the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5 of June 2019 report, no adverse effects to the special-status plants are expected to occur as a result of the project.
A-3 274 564 Magnolia Street Project BRE Addendum
Special-Status Animals
No federal, state, or sensitive animal species were observed in the work areas during the January 2020 field survey. No USFWS-designated critical habitat is located within the work areas. For the purpose of this Addendum, January 2020 survey results were consistent with the June 2019 BRE that of the 12 special-status species that were reviewed within a 5-mile radius surrounding the survey area, three special-status wildlife species were determined to have potential to occur in the work areas:
• California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii): federally threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC);
• San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia): federally and state endangered, CDFW fully protected species; and
• Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus): federal candidate species
Additionally, the January 2020 assessment is consistent with the June 2019 report determination that the fragmentated, high level of disturbance and human activity within the work areas diminishes the quality of habitat to support the above species, and the potential for these species to occur within the work areas is low. Therefore, with the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures provided in Section 5 of the June 2019 report, no adverse effects to the special-status animals are expected to occur as a result of the project.
Conclusion
Although the additional proposed work areas at 574 Magnolia Street and the fire truck turnaround are adjacent to 564 Magnolia Street, they are essentially in the same location as that analyzed in the June 2019 BRE (which included a 200-foot buffer around 564 Magnolia Street as part of the analysis). As such, the same habitats occur within and surrounding the additional project areas, and therefore the same plant and animal species could potentially occur and/or be affected by project activities. Although the work proposed for the fire truck turnaround is slightly different in scope as compared to the construction of residences at 564 and 574 Magnolia Street, the need to culvert over the existing drainage along the south side of Magnolia Street is the same as described in the June 2019 BRE (although the culvert would include a longer section of the drainage ditch).
In summary, with the implementation of mitigation measures contained in the June 2019 BRE, SWCA’s assessment of the potential habitat and/or species impacts from the proposed development of a new single-family residence at 574 Magnolia Street, and the construction of a fire truck turnaround, are consistent with those identified in the June 2019 BRE report (including when all three projects [564 Magnolia Street, 574 Magnolia Street, and the fire truck turnaround] are considered collectively). No additional impacts, beyond those reported in the June 2019 report were identified as part of this analysis of the additional work areas. Therefore, SWCA has determined that mitigation measures and procedures described in the June 2019 report provide sufficient mitigation to avoid potential impacts to unique, rare, or endangered species and their habitats that could occur within project areas.
A-4 275
276
277
APPENDIX A4
Special Status Plant Survey Results for the Magnolia Street Project and 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California
278
279
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Brittany Cozzolino, Associate Planner City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
From: Lincoln Allen, Project Manager
Date: March 31, 2020
Re: Special-Status Plant Survey Results for the Magnolia Street Project and 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California / SWCA Project No. 58891
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has prepared this Special-Status Plant Survey Results Technical Memorandum for the City of Half Moon Bay (City) for the Magnolia Street Project (564 and 574 Magnolia Street and the Magnolia Street fire truck turnaround) and the 555 Seymour Street Project, located in Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. For the purpose of this memorandum, the property parcels at 564 Magnolia, 574 Magnolia, 555 Seymour Street and the fire truck turn-around are collectively referred to as the Study Area (Figure 1). At the request of the City, SWCA conducted a focused special-status Plant Survey for fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) (CNPS Rank 1B.2). Two biological resource evaluations (BREs) were previously prepared for 564 Magnolia Street and 555 Seymour Street in Half Moon Bay, California: the Biological Resource Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (2019a BRE)1, and the Biological Resource Evaluation for the 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (2019b BRE)2. In these two BREs, which both contained biological study areas that encompassed the 2020 survey areas depicted in Figure 1 below, fragrant fritillary was determined to have a low potential to occur.
The special-status plant survey described in this memorandum, which focused only on fragrant fritillary, was conducted on March 6, 2020 and occurred within the blooming period for this species. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the methods and results of the focused special-status plant survey.
METHODS
Per the 2019a and 2019b BREs, fragrant fritillary had a low potential to occur within the Study Area. Prior to the 2020 survey, a reference site for fragrant fritillary was visited by SWCA botanist Erich
1 SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2019a. Biological Resource Evaluation for the 564 Magnolia Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. Prepared for the City of Half Moon Bay. June. 2 SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2019b. Biological Resource Evaluation for the 555 Seymour Street Project, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California. Prepared for the City of Half Moon Bay. September.
280 Magnolia Street Project and 555 Seymour Street Project Special-Status Plant Survey
Schickenberg on March 2, 2020. This reference site visit occurred during the peak blooming period for this species. The reference site is located within Año Nuevo State Park, on the coastal terrace just south of Whitehouse Creek Trail approximately 20 miles south of the Study Area. The reference population was observed to be in bloom and it was determined that, based on the local phenology, that this species would be identifiable within the Study Area.
After visiting the fragrant fritillary reference site, a targeted special-status plant survey for fragrant fritillary was conducted on March 6, 2020, by SWCA botanist Erich Schickenberg, who is familiar with the flora of San Mateo County. The entire Study Area (Figure 1) was traversed on foot by walking transects approximately five feet apart. Plant species observed at the time of this survey were consistent with those listed in the 2019a and 2019b BREs.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
Although fragrant fritillary was observed to be in bloom at the reference site located within a coastal terrace area to the south of the Study Area, this species was not observed within the Study Area during the focused survey, which included the property parcels at 564 Magnolia, 574 Magnolia, 555 Seymour Street and the fire truck turn-around (Figure 1). Because this species was not observed within the Study Area during the species’ blooming period, no additional mitigations would be required for project work within these areas.
2 281 Magnolia Street Project and 555 Seymour Street Project Special-Status Plant Survey
Figure 1. Project Location Map (the focused plant Study Area is defined by property parcel and fire truck turnaround areas).
3 282
283 APPENDIX B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
284
285 555 SEYMOUR PARCEL MAP PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), which state:
Section 15097. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
(a)… In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.
(c) The public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measures. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both. The choice of program may be guided by the following:
(1) Reporting is suited to projects which have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or which already involve regular review. For example, a report may be required upon issuance of final occupancy to a project whose mitigation measures were confirmed by building inspection.
(2) Monitoring is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetlands restoration or archeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance.
(3) Reporting and monitoring are suited to all but the most simple projects. Monitoring ensures that project compliance is checked on a regular basis during and, if necessary after, implementation. Reporting ensures that the approving agency is informed of compliance with mitigation requirements.
The MMRP table below lists the proposed mitigation measures identified in the 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The table also describes the timing for mitigation measure implementation (e.g.., when the measure shall be implemented) and the parties—such as the Construction Contractor, Project Owner, and/or City of Half Moon Bay—that are responsible for ensuring implementation of all aspects of each measure. Additionally, the MMRP table below provides comments that highlight measure contents and responsibilities.
286 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone Biological Resources BIO-1 The following general mitigation measures shall be implemented during the project: Prepare environmental awareness training materials and Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction administer environmental awareness training on site. Ensure that all new personnel are trained before they a. Prior to the start of the project, all construction crew members shall attend an begin work. environmental awareness training presented by a qualified biologist. A training brochure
describing special-status species, project avoidance and avoidance and minimization Minimize disturbance to vegetation. measures, and key contacts, and potential consequences of impacts to special-status
species and potentially jurisdictional water features will be distributed to the crew Do not handle wildlife that is encountered during project members during the training. activities. Wildlife will be allowed to leave the work area b. Disturbance to vegetation should be kept to the minimum necessary to complete the of their own accord and without harassment. project activities, provided there is no feasible alternative. To minimize impacts to vegetation, a qualified biologist shall work with the contractor to designate the work area Contain, remove, and properly dispose of trash on a and any staging areas as well as delineate areas that should be avoided with exclusionary regular basis. fencing (i.e., high visibility orange construction fencing or silt fence). Areas that shall be avoided include the potentially jurisdictional drainages. Minimize disturbance to the minimum necessary to complete the project. c. If any wildlife is encountered during project activities, said wildlife must be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and a biologist shall be able to relocate the wildlife outside of the project limits. All listed wildlife species shall be allowed to leave the work area of their own accord and without harassment. Animals shall not be picked up or moved in any way. d. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, trash/construction debris shall be removed from work areas. e. The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. Routes and boundaries shall be clearly demarcated, and these areas shall be outside of the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
BIO-2 Minimize impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles: Work should occur during the dry season (June 1 to Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction October 15) to avoid impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles. Construction work shall not a. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grubbing or grading) should occur during occur within 48 hours following a rain event of 0.25 inch the dry season (June 1 to October 15) to facilitate avoidance of California red-legged frog. or more within a 24-hour period, and a 48-hour dry-out Regardless of the season, no construction shall occur within 24 hours following a period shall be implemented following such a significant significant rain event (greater than 1/4 inch in a 24-hour period). rain event. Ensure a qualified biologist conducts a b. Following a significant rain event and the 48-hour drying-out period, a qualified biologist preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog shall conduct a preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog prior to the restart before project activities restart following a dry-out of any project activities. period.
1
287
555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone c. A qualified biologist shall mark for avoidance all burrows found within the project area Soil shall not be stockpiled on bare ground where it could using colored flags. If flagged burrows or burrow areas cannot be avoided by impact burrows, as special-status amphibians and reptiles construction, then the biologist shall monitor all initial ground-disturbing activities where may be present within burrows. burrows or burrow areas occur. These activities include initial vegetation clearing/removal, grading, and/or excavation. During monitoring of initial ground- Appropriate wildlife exclusion fencing shall be properly disturbing activities, the biological monitor shall have the authority to stop work activities installed and maintained around the entire work area upon the discovery of sensitive biological resources/species, and allow construction to before construction activities commence. proceed after the identification and implementation of steps required to avoid or minimize impacts to the sensitive species. d. To assist in excluding California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from the work area, an exclusion fence shall be installed around the entire work area prior to the commencement of construction activities. Exclusion fencing shall be silt-fence type fencing or equivalent and shall not include poly mesh fencing or other similar fencing that could entrap or snag reptiles, amphibians, or other small animals. Exclusion fencing shall be installed with the fence stakes placed on the inside of the fencing (closest to the project boundary) to prevent frogs or snakes from using the stakes to maneuver over the fence. The fencing shall be maintained until all work has been completed.
BIO-3 Minimize impacts to monarch butterfly: To minimize impacts to monarch butterfly, time Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction substantial tree trimming activities to comply with the measure. Ensure a qualified biologist conducts a a. Tree trimming activities should be conducted outside of the over-wintering season for preconstruction survey for monarch butterflies. monarch butterfly (approximately mid-October to March). If substantial tree trimming is required during the over-wintering season, tree trimming shall not take place when temperatures are 55 degrees Fahrenheit and below (when monarch butterflies are clustered in roost trees due to low temperatures). If tree trimming is required at or below 55 degrees Fahrenheit, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for monarch butterflies. If monarch butterflies are present, the project biologist shall require modifications to the project to avoid adverse impacts to monarch butterflies.
BIO-4 Minimize impacts to wetlands and waters: Reduce potential for dust by wetting exposed surfaces Project Owner / Construction Contractor / City of Prior to / during construction periodically. Half Moon Bay
a. All exposed surfaces shall be wetted periodically to prevent significant dust. Reduce potential for sediment loss by covering stockpiled b. All stockpiled soil shall be covered during periods of rain. soils during periods of rain.
c. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall Ensure fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other occur at least 100 feet from the potentially jurisdictional drainages. The owner shall equipment and staging areas do not occur within 100 feet ensure that contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the of drainages, and that such drainages are not onset of work, the Owner shall ensure that there is a plan to allow a prompt and effective contaminated during refueling, maintenance, or staging of materials. Prior to beginning project work, the project
288 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of Owner shall develop a Spill Response Plan to ensure preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. prompt and effective response to accidental spills. The plan must be submitted to the City of Half Moon Bay d. Any and all spoils (e.g., dirt, debris, construction-related materials) generated during before construction commences, and must be kept onsite project activities shall be placed where they cannot enter the potentially jurisdictional at all times during construction. Adequate spill clean-up drainages. supplies must be kept on site and at-the-ready during e. All exposed soils in the work area (resulting from project activities) shall be stabilized construction. The plan will be included in the immediately following the completion of work to prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment environmental awareness training. control Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel or rock-lined drainages, water check bars, and broadcast straw, can be used. Straw wattles, Drainages shall be protected from project-generated if used, shall be made of biodegradable fabric (e.g., burlap) and free of monofilament spoils. netting. All exposed soil shall be protected from erosion with jute matting on slopes. At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages. Ensure that all exposed soils associated with the project are stabilized immediately following construction f. Before completion of the project, all exposed or disturbed surfaces shall be permanently completion. Appropriate BMPs shall be deployed prior to protected from erosion with reseeding and landscaping. and during construction to prevent erosion and/or runoff into potentially jurisdictional drainages.
Once the project is complete, ensure that all exposed and/or disturbed surfaces are protected from soil erosion with reseeding and landscaping.
BIO-5 Minimize impacts to nesting birds, as required by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Project activities, including tree removal activities, should Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction be conducted outside of nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15). If work outside of nesting bird a. Tree trimming and/or vegetation removal activities (including shrubs and grasses) should season is not feasible, then ensure a qualified biologist be conducted outside of nesting bird season. However, if project activities are conducted conducts preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to during nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), preconstruction nest commencing work. surveys shall be conducted in and near the project (within 500 feet for large raptors and
300 feet for all other birds) by a qualified biologist. If nesting is identified during the If nesting birds or raptors are observed on site, ensure an preconstruction survey, then a buffer shall be established of a size determined by the appropriately-sized no-work buffer is established around project biologist to be sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and/or the project shall the nest and/or the project is modified and/or delayed as be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct take of the identified nests, necessary in coordination with the project biologist. eggs, and/or young.
If a construction area becomes inactive for more than 2 weeks, then preconstruction nesting bird surveys need to be repeated prior to re-starting work within inactive areas.
Cultural Resources CUL-1 Avoid and/or reduce impacts to known historical and archaeological resources: Prior to commencing work, ensure that construction Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay / Prior to / during construction personnel are trained and informed of how to identify Project Owner
3
289
555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work within 50 and avoid historical and archaeological resources in the
feet of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist, deemed suitable by the City, can event that they are exposed during construction. Such evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. In training may be included in the environmental awareness the event that an archeological resource is discovered that meets the criteria to be training prepared for the project per BIO-1. considered an historic resource or unique archeological resource under CEQA, the archaeologist shall prescribe additional measures. These measures may include, but are not If archaeological or historical resources are discovered limited to, testing, data recovery, and additional archeological monitoring. In the event that a during construction, the Contractor shall ensure that resource is, or is suspected to be, Native American in origin, Native American monitoring shall work is immediately stopped in the vicinity of the find, also be required. The Owner, in consultation with the City, shall implement all measures and the City of Half Moon Bay is immediately notified. prescribed by the qualified archaeologist. Following these measures will avoid adverse Discovered resources must be left in place as they were impacts to archaeological resources. found: do not touch, collect, or otherwise disturb found resources.
Work shall not resume in the vicinity of any discovered resources until the resources are fully evaluated by the archaeologist, and the City of Half Moon Bay approves the continuation of work in the vicinity of the find.
Ensure any additional cultural work such as testing or data recovery is implemented as required.
CUL-2 The project shall comply with the requirements of Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 Contractor and field personnel shall ensure that if human Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay During construction regarding the discovery of human remains: remains are encountered during construction demolition and/or grading activities, construction is immediately If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction, demolition and/or halted and the CUL-2 measure notification procedures grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further are implemented, including immediately contacting the disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin County Coroner. and disposition pursuant to California PRC Section 5097.98. In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following procedure shall be observed: Work shall not resume until approval is obtained from all a. Stop immediately and contact the County Coroner: necessary authorities, including but not limited to the City of Half Moon Bay. 50 Tower Road San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 3120-5562 b. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). c. The NAHC would immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American.
290 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods.
Geology and Soils GEO-1 In the unlikely event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the project applicants shall Ensure compliance with Public Resources Code (PRC). Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay During construction comply with PRC Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244, which prohibit the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature Stop work in the immediate vicinity of any discovered from lands under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public paleontological resources until a qualified paleontologist corporation, or any agency thereof. To be consistent with these PRC Sections, in the event evaluates the significance of the discovery. that paleontological resources are exposed during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of Ensure any additional paleontological work such as the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves testing or data recovery is implemented as required. significant under the provisions of CEQA, the paleontologist shall prescribe, and the project Applicants shall implement, additional measures such as testing or data recovery to avoid impacts to the resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1 To the extent feasible, construction workers living outside San Mateo County shall meet at If feasible, ensure that workers living outside San Mateo Construction Contractor During construction designated areas and be transported (in carpools) to the project area. County meet at designated areas and are transported (in carpools) to the project area.
GHG‐2 Alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) should be used on at least 15% of construction If feasible, the construction contractor should use Construction Contractor Prior to / during construction vehicles/equipment, if feasible alternative fuels in at least 15% of construction equipment.
GHG-3 To the extent feasible, off-road construction diesel engines shall meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 To the extent feasible, construction contractor shall Construction Contractor During construction California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines. ensure all off-road construction diesel engines meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines.
Tribal Cultural Resources TRI-1 In the event that objects or artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources are encountered Prior to commencing work, ensure that construction Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay During construction. during the course of the project, all such activities shall temporarily cease on the project site personnel are trained and informed of how to identify and artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources in the event that they are discovered during construction. Such
5
291
555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone until the potential tribal cultural resources are properly assessed and treated pursuant to PRC training may be included in the environmental awareness Section 21074 (a)(2). training prepared for the project per BIO-1.
If artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources are discovered during work, halt all construction activities on the project site and immediately notify the City of Half Moon Bay.
Discovered resources must be left in place as they were found: do not touch, collect, or otherwise disturb found resources.
Work shall not resume in the vicinity of any discovered resources until the resources are properly assessed, and the City of Half Moon Bay approves the continuation of work in the vicinity of the find.
292 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), which state:
Section 15097. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
(a)… In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.
(c) The public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measures. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both. The choice of program may be guided by the following:
(1) Reporting is suited to projects which have readily measurable or quantitative mitigation measures or which already involve regular review. For example, a report may be required upon issuance of final occupancy to a project whose mitigation measures were confirmed by building inspection.
(2) Monitoring is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetlands restoration or archeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance.
(3) Reporting and monitoring are suited to all but the most simple projects. Monitoring ensures that project compliance is checked on a regular basis during and, if necessary after, implementation. Reporting ensures that the approving agency is informed of compliance with mitigation requirements.
The MMRP table below lists the proposed mitigation measures identified in the 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The table also describes the timing for mitigation measure implementation (e.g.., when the measure shall be implemented) and the parties—such as the Construction Contractor, Project Owner, and/or City of Half Moon Bay—that are responsible for ensuring implementation of all aspects of each measure. Additionally, the MMRP table below provides comments that highlight measure contents and responsibilities.
293 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone Biological Resources BIO-1 The following general mitigation measures shall be implemented during the project: Prepare environmental awareness training materials and Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction administer environmental awareness training on site. Ensure that all new personnel are trained before they a. Prior to the start of the project, all construction crew members shall attend an begin work. environmental awareness training presented by a qualified biologist. A training brochure
describing special-status species, project avoidance and avoidance and minimization Minimize disturbance to vegetation. measures, and key contacts, and potential consequences of impacts to special-status
species and potentially jurisdictional water features will be distributed to the crew Do not handle wildlife that is encountered during project members during the training. activities. Wildlife will be allowed to leave the work area b. Disturbance to vegetation should be kept to the minimum necessary to complete the of their own accord and without harassment. project activities, provided there is no feasible alternative. To minimize impacts to vegetation, a qualified biologist shall work with the contractor to designate the work area Contain, remove, and properly dispose of trash on a and any staging areas as well as delineate areas that should be avoided with exclusionary regular basis. fencing (i.e., high visibility orange construction fencing or silt fence). Areas that shall be avoided include the potentially jurisdictional drainages. Minimize disturbance to the minimum necessary to complete the project. c. If any wildlife is encountered during project activities, said wildlife must be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and a biologist shall be able to relocate the wildlife outside of the project limits. All listed wildlife species shall be allowed to leave the work area of their own accord and without harassment. Animals shall not be picked up or moved in any way. d. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly contained, removed, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, trash/construction debris shall be removed from work areas. e. The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. Routes and boundaries shall be clearly demarcated, and these areas shall be outside of the potentially jurisdictional drainages.
BIO-2 Minimize impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles: Work should occur during the dry season (June 1 to Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction October 15) to avoid impacts to special-status amphibians and reptiles. Construction work shall not a. Ground-disturbing construction activities (e.g., grubbing or grading) should occur during occur within 48 hours following a rain event of 0.25 inch the dry season (June 1 to October 15) to facilitate avoidance of California red-legged frog. or more within a 24-hour period, and a 48-hour dry-out Regardless of the season, no construction shall occur within 24 hours following a period shall be implemented following such a significant significant rain event (greater than 1/4 inch in a 24-hour period). rain event. Ensure a qualified biologist conducts a b. Following a significant rain event and the 48-hour drying-out period, a qualified biologist preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog shall conduct a preconstruction survey for California red-legged frog prior to the restart before project activities restart following a dry-out of any project activities. period.
1
294
555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone c. A qualified biologist shall mark for avoidance all burrows found within the project area Soil shall not be stockpiled on bare ground where it could using colored flags. If flagged burrows or burrow areas cannot be avoided by impact burrows, as special-status amphibians and reptiles construction, then the biologist shall monitor all initial ground-disturbing activities where may be present within burrows. burrows or burrow areas occur. These activities include initial vegetation clearing/removal, grading, and/or excavation. During monitoring of initial ground- Appropriate wildlife exclusion fencing shall be properly disturbing activities, the biological monitor shall have the authority to stop work activities installed and maintained around the entire work area upon the discovery of sensitive biological resources/species, and allow construction to before construction activities commence. proceed after the identification and implementation of steps required to avoid or minimize impacts to the sensitive species. d. To assist in excluding California red-legged frogs and San Francisco garter snakes from the work area, an exclusion fence shall be installed around the entire work area prior to the commencement of construction activities. Exclusion fencing shall be silt-fence type fencing or equivalent and shall not include poly mesh fencing or other similar fencing that could entrap or snag reptiles, amphibians, or other small animals. Exclusion fencing shall be installed with the fence stakes placed on the inside of the fencing (closest to the project boundary) to prevent frogs or snakes from using the stakes to maneuver over the fence. The fencing shall be maintained until all work has been completed.
BIO-3 Minimize impacts to monarch butterfly: To minimize impacts to monarch butterfly, time Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction substantial tree trimming activities to comply with the measure. Ensure a qualified biologist conducts a a. Tree trimming activities should be conducted outside of the over-wintering season for preconstruction survey for monarch butterflies. monarch butterfly (approximately mid-October to March). If substantial tree trimming is required during the over-wintering season, tree trimming shall not take place when temperatures are 55 degrees Fahrenheit and below (when monarch butterflies are clustered in roost trees due to low temperatures). If tree trimming is required at or below 55 degrees Fahrenheit, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for monarch butterflies. If monarch butterflies are present, the project biologist shall require modifications to the project to avoid adverse impacts to monarch butterflies.
BIO-4 Minimize impacts to wetlands and waters: Reduce potential for dust by wetting exposed surfaces Project Owner / Construction Contractor / City of Prior to / during construction periodically. Half Moon Bay
a. All exposed surfaces shall be wetted periodically to prevent significant dust. Reduce potential for sediment loss by covering stockpiled b. All stockpiled soil shall be covered during periods of rain. soils during periods of rain.
c. All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall Ensure fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other occur at least 100 feet from the potentially jurisdictional drainages. The owner shall equipment and staging areas do not occur within 100 feet ensure that contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the of drainages, and that such drainages are not onset of work, the Owner shall ensure that there is a plan to allow a prompt and effective contaminated during refueling, maintenance, or staging of materials. Prior to beginning project work, the project
295 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone response to any accidental spills. All workers shall be informed of the importance of Owner shall develop a Spill Response Plan to ensure preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. prompt and effective response to accidental spills. The plan must be submitted to the City of Half Moon Bay d. Any and all spoils (e.g., dirt, debris, construction-related materials) generated during before construction commences, and must be kept onsite project activities shall be placed where they cannot enter the potentially jurisdictional at all times during construction. Adequate spill clean-up drainages. supplies must be kept on site and at-the-ready during e. All exposed soils in the work area (resulting from project activities) shall be stabilized construction. The plan will be included in the immediately following the completion of work to prevent erosion. Erosion and sediment environmental awareness training. control Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as silt fences, straw hay bales, gravel or rock-lined drainages, water check bars, and broadcast straw, can be used. Straw wattles, Drainages shall be protected from project-generated if used, shall be made of biodegradable fabric (e.g., burlap) and free of monofilament spoils. netting. All exposed soil shall be protected from erosion with jute matting on slopes. At no time shall silt-laden runoff be allowed to enter the potentially jurisdictional drainages. Ensure that all exposed soils associated with the project are stabilized immediately following construction f. Before completion of the project, all exposed or disturbed surfaces shall be permanently completion. Appropriate BMPs shall be deployed prior to protected from erosion with reseeding and landscaping. and during construction to prevent erosion and/or runoff into potentially jurisdictional drainages.
Once the project is complete, ensure that all exposed and/or disturbed surfaces are protected from soil erosion with reseeding and landscaping.
BIO-5 Minimize impacts to nesting birds, as required by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Project activities, including tree removal activities, should Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay Prior to / during construction be conducted outside of nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15). If work outside of nesting bird a. Tree trimming and/or vegetation removal activities (including shrubs and grasses) should season is not feasible, then ensure a qualified biologist be conducted outside of nesting bird season. However, if project activities are conducted conducts preconstruction nesting bird surveys prior to during nesting bird season (February 15 through September 15), preconstruction nest commencing work. surveys shall be conducted in and near the project (within 500 feet for large raptors and
300 feet for all other birds) by a qualified biologist. If nesting is identified during the If nesting birds or raptors are observed on site, ensure an preconstruction survey, then a buffer shall be established of a size determined by the appropriately-sized no-work buffer is established around project biologist to be sufficient to avoid impacts to nesting birds and/or the project shall the nest and/or the project is modified and/or delayed as be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct take of the identified nests, necessary in coordination with the project biologist. eggs, and/or young.
If a construction area becomes inactive for more than 2 weeks, then preconstruction nesting bird surveys need to be repeated prior to re-starting work within inactive areas.
Cultural Resources CUL-1 Avoid and/or reduce impacts to known historical and archaeological resources: Prior to commencing work, ensure that construction Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay / Prior to / during construction personnel are trained and informed of how to identify Project Owner
3
296
555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during construction, work within 50 and avoid historical and archaeological resources in the
feet of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist, deemed suitable by the City, can event that they are exposed during construction. Such evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. In training may be included in the environmental awareness the event that an archeological resource is discovered that meets the criteria to be training prepared for the project per BIO-1. considered an historic resource or unique archeological resource under CEQA, the archaeologist shall prescribe additional measures. These measures may include, but are not If archaeological or historical resources are discovered limited to, testing, data recovery, and additional archeological monitoring. In the event that a during construction, the Contractor shall ensure that resource is, or is suspected to be, Native American in origin, Native American monitoring shall work is immediately stopped in the vicinity of the find, also be required. The Owner, in consultation with the City, shall implement all measures and the City of Half Moon Bay is immediately notified. prescribed by the qualified archaeologist. Following these measures will avoid adverse Discovered resources must be left in place as they were impacts to archaeological resources. found: do not touch, collect, or otherwise disturb found resources.
Work shall not resume in the vicinity of any discovered resources until the resources are fully evaluated by the archaeologist, and the City of Half Moon Bay approves the continuation of work in the vicinity of the find.
Ensure any additional cultural work such as testing or data recovery is implemented as required.
CUL-2 The project shall comply with the requirements of Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 Contractor and field personnel shall ensure that if human Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay During construction regarding the discovery of human remains: remains are encountered during construction demolition and/or grading activities, construction is immediately If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction, demolition and/or halted and the CUL-2 measure notification procedures grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further are implemented, including immediately contacting the disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin County Coroner. and disposition pursuant to California PRC Section 5097.98. In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following procedure shall be observed: Work shall not resume until approval is obtained from all a. Stop immediately and contact the County Coroner: necessary authorities, including but not limited to the City of Half Moon Bay. 50 Tower Road San Mateo, CA 94402 (650) 3120-5562 b. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). c. The NAHC would immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American.
297 555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods.
Geology and Soils GEO-1 In the unlikely event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the project applicants shall Ensure compliance with Public Resources Code (PRC). Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay During construction comply with PRC Division 5, Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5, and Division 20, Chapter 3, Section 30244, which prohibit the removal, without permission, of any paleontological site or feature Stop work in the immediate vicinity of any discovered from lands under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public paleontological resources until a qualified paleontologist corporation, or any agency thereof. To be consistent with these PRC Sections, in the event evaluates the significance of the discovery. that paleontological resources are exposed during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of Ensure any additional paleontological work such as the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves testing or data recovery is implemented as required. significant under the provisions of CEQA, the paleontologist shall prescribe, and the project Applicants shall implement, additional measures such as testing or data recovery to avoid impacts to the resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG-1 To the extent feasible, construction workers living outside San Mateo County shall meet at If feasible, ensure that workers living outside San Mateo Construction Contractor During construction designated areas and be transported (in carpools) to the project area. County meet at designated areas and are transported (in carpools) to the project area.
GHG-2 Alternative fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) should be used on at least 15% of construction If feasible, the construction contractor should use Construction Contractor Prior to / during construction vehicles/equipment, if feasible alternative fuels in at least 15% of construction equipment.
GHG-3 To the extent feasible, off-road construction diesel engines shall meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 To the extent feasible, construction contractor shall Construction Contractor During construction California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines. ensure all off-road construction diesel engines meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 California Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines.
Tribal Cultural Resources TRI-1 In the event that objects or artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources are encountered Prior to commencing work, ensure that construction Construction Contractor / City of Half Moon Bay During construction. during the course of the project, all such activities shall temporarily cease on the project site personnel are trained and informed of how to identify and artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources in the event that they are discovered during construction. Such
5
298
555 Seymour Parcel Map Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Color Codes Measure Implemented Prior to Construction or Pending Approval Measure Implemented During Construction Measure Implemented Following Construction Completion Impact Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) or Mitigation Measure Comments Responsible Party Timing / Milestone until the potential tribal cultural resources are properly assessed and treated pursuant to PRC training may be included in the environmental awareness Section 21074 (a)(2). training prepared for the project per BIO-1.
If artifacts that may be tribal cultural resources are discovered during work, halt all construction activities on the project site and immediately notify the City of Half Moon Bay.
Discovered resources must be left in place as they were found: do not touch, collect, or otherwise disturb found resources.
Work shall not resume in the vicinity of any discovered resources until the resources are properly assessed, and the City of Half Moon Bay approves the continuation of work in the vicinity of the find.
299
Community Development Department
Jill Dever Ekas, AICP, Director
Date: November 24, 2020 To: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Jill Ekas, Community Development Director Douglas Garrison, Senior Planner Subject: PDP-20-014 – 555 Seymour Street - Tentative Parcel Map and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This memo is being distributed to address Planning Commission questions and comments received for an item included on the November 24, 2020 meeting agenda after the packet was distributed. Staff is also recommending additional conditions of approval for the Planning Commission’s consideration. Responses to the Commission and draft additional conditions of approval are provided below. Planning Commission Questions and Responses: Q1: Sewer Service: Is the private sewer line being installed primarily for the two new properties on the south side of Magnolia? A1: Initially, the sewer line was aligned along the rear of the lots to accommodate the new homes on Magnolia. This option was addressed in their approvals and in the IS/MND that the City prepared for some of the homes and the new fire truck turnaround on Magnolia. Otherwise, they would have had to construct a longer line that would require tearing up streets. This approach was agreed upon by the various property owners. Planning and Engineering were neutral on which option was selected, they both work. Once the Seymour owners granted the north-south easement across their property, it made sense for them to connect from the rear also. There is an old City sewer easement running east-west along the Seymour/ Magnolia rear property lines that was never used by the City. This is where the new sewer line will go.
Q2: Tentative Map: I understand that the discussion re potential new residences at 565 and 575 Seymour is conceptual. And the final map and CDP will be required for those. I'm curious what you think of this process. Does it make sense to require the applicant to create and get approval for a tentative map with accompanying conditions and mitigations? Does that benefit the applicant in making progress on the project, rather than doing it all with one final map?
A2: The order of approvals is dictated by the City Subdivision Ordinance. It requires a Tentative Parcel Map approval by the Planning Commission and then a Final Parcel Map approval by the City Engineer/ Surveyor. In some jurisdictions, this is more of a one step process for small
300
subdivisions (less than 5 lots). In this case, there should not be any substantial changes between the tentative and the final map. So, the Final Map review is mostly a technical review by Engineering to confirm that the boundary descriptions are correct, that the map is the correct format, etc. Some applicants will include house plans with an application for a parcel map to reduce the number of permitting hurdles. This is mostly true of larger subdivisions where a limited number of model home designs are distributed throughout the subdivision or in the case of irregularly shaped lots. For the 555 Seymour Street case, there is a partnership of sorts and each owner will come up with their own home designs. Staff included the conceptual building footprints along with other supplemental info (e.g. construction scheduling, amount of grading, etc.) to facilitate a comprehensive environmental review. In some cases, the parcel map is just that, and future development is not planned (mostly rural properties with limited development potential or subdivisions that are primarily for estate planning purposes). In such cases, the review may not evaluate future development because it would be overly speculative. In this case, the property is zoned for residential development and the applicants made it clear that they intend to build on the new lots someday. Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that a house will be built on each new lot and included that in the environmental evaluation. Q3: Noise: While I am uncomfortable at the process of creating a lot so close to the highway, (1) with 65-75 dBA CNEL pressure levels in the yard before constructive interference from reflecting sound waves bouncing off of structures behind the yard, and (2) with an interior subject to widely fluctuating noise that could very well interrupt the sleep of residents, I am not an audiologist. I don’t dispute that placing occupants in a location exceeding CHABA limits would be recognized as a substantial impact, but I am not persuaded that it is sufficient. One day I hope to learn whether subsequent decades of scientific research have had anything new to say since the CHABA statement.1 I couldn’t help wondering whether the subdivision could have been drawn so that the two new lots each had buildable pads further from Hwy 1 with a driveway easement, but it is what it is. A3: Portions of the subject property are located approximately 100 feet west of Highway 1 and appear to be within the 65-70 dB range according to the City’s 2014 noise contour map prepared for the Land Use Plan update (Existing Conditions Report). The Noise Element requires the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for single-family residences to be 40 dB or less for the interior of the residence, and 60 dB or less for the exterior. The interior and exterior requirements are discussed separately, as the health and safety implications of these requirements differ. Interior noise levels. Human health and Half Moon Bay noise policy are considered as follows for interior sound levels: • Human health: Figure 2 of the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) guidelines on preparation of noise elements indicates the 65-70 dB contour to be normally acceptable
1 Staff note: CHABA reference is to “Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics,” of the National Research Council. Staff did not have time to obtain a specific citation for the Commissioner’s CHABA reference (statement, date, source, etc.).
2
301
for single-family residential development assuming conventional construction methods, which will reduce these levels in building interiors. As such, there is no concern for impacts to human health with implementation of conventional construction methods to reduce interior noise levels.
• Half Moon Bay Noise Element: The concern for interior noise levels is meeting Half Moon Bay’s General Plan Noise Element more stringent requirement of 40 dB, where interior standards are typically set at 45 dB. However, this can still be achieved for the proposed project with improved construction methods such as insulation and certain window types which have been successfully incorporated in other similarly sited projects. Half Moon Bay’s Building Official notes that California Building Code requirements for habitable space establish a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 45 dB. There is an exemption that applies to single family homes. This indicates that standard building practices can readily meet a reduction of 45 dB which would reduce interior noise levels to meet the HMB 40 dB standard. Proposed condition of approval A.7 addresses the requirement for noise to be attenuated to meet the Noise Element standard. This condition is written broadly to allow for implementation for any type of future develop of the project site. Exterior noise levels. Human health and Half Moon Bay noise policy are considered as follows for exterior sound levels: • Human health: Federal agencies including the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety and the Environmental Protection Agency consider human health risks to occur only with repeated exposure to noise levels of 70 dB or more. Staff notes that that while this reference is of interest, it is not the standard of review for City permitting. Staff also notes that this data remains current and is presented in a recent 2016 posting by the CDC.2
• Half Moon Bay Noise Element: The Noise Element is the standard of review for development proposals in Half Moon Bay, which is more conservative than the human health thresholds for preventing hearing loss presented in the afore referenced CDC report. Exhibit 13 of the Noise Element provides for exterior noise standards of 60 dB for the “outdoor environment limited to: private, usable yard of single family,…” The Noise Element does not define “usable yard;” however, by specifically making this differentiation, it is clear that the standard does not apply to the entire lot. City practice has been to establish that a usable portion of the yard area meets the Noise Element standards. Therefore, in order to ensure the project is not exposed to a health risk and meets the City standard provided by the Noise Element, a specified portion of the outdoor usable space must have an exterior noise level of 60 dB or less. With careful siting of patios, decks or other private spaces that take advantage of noise attenuation provided by the building and associated fences, this standard can be achieved. Compliance with proposed condition of approval A.7 will require preparation of a noise study which
2 Understanding Noise Exposure Limits: Occupational vs. General Environmental Noise | | Blogs | CDC
3
302
provides assurance that these standards can and will be met. Staff notes that it would be premature to conduct such a study in advance of preliminary site and building plans for the subject property. It is anticipated that the condition will be met by locating outdoor usable space away from the highway on the western side of the property and/or by utilizing sound attenuating fence materials that will provide sound attenuation for a designated outdoor space. Q4. Fire Department Concerns: Does the fire district impose requirements on the water line extension that should be incorporated into the water line conditions of approval with respect to fire flow? Does the road with and proximity to a fire hydrant satisfy the CPFD? A4. Application materials were reviewed by the Coastside Fire Protection District (CFPD). They responded in writing that they did not have comments on the Tentative Parcel Map. Seymour Street is a paved all-weather road that meets current standards for emergency access. If the Tentative Parcel Map is approved and the water line extension along Seymour is constructed, CFPD may require an additional fire hydrant linked to approval of new homes when applications are submitted Q5. Lot Retirement: The report includes recommendations to incorporate a lot retirement condition if the applicant agrees. What is your recommendation if the applicant does not agree? A5. The staff report did not mean to imply that the applicant does not agree with this requirement. Instead, the report explains that there is history with respect to how lot retirement is implemented in Half Moon Bay and that the applicant is researching options for addressing lot retirement. At this time, the applicant has informed staff that they will seek to retire lots within Planned Development (PD) areas in Half Moon Bay. See below for a recommended condition of approval addressing the applicant’s preference for such lots in PD areas.
Recommended Additional Conditions of Approval:
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission include the following additional conditions of approval if they move this project forward: LOT RETIREMENT. Prior to the issuance of residential building dwelling permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that two potentially developable lots within the city limits, in a PD area have either been purchased and deed restricted to extinguish development rights in perpetuity or the lots have been transferred to an open space trust or other appropriate land management entity as determined by the City. PARK AND RECREATION LAND DEDICATION. Prior to recordation of the Final Parcel Map, the applicant shall comply with Chapter 17.48 of the City Subdivision Ordinance by paying a fee for the purpose of providing park and recreation facilities to serve the residents of Half Moon Bay. The amount of the fee shall be calculated pursuant to the standards and methodology established in Chapter 17.48, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer.
4
303