City of Half Moon Bay 320 C H U R C H S Treet P Roject Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY 320 C H U R C H S TREET P ROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Prepared for:

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY 501 MAIN STREET HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

Prepared by:

1590 DREW AVENUE, SUITE 120 DAVIS, CA 95618

DECEMBER 2011

C I T Y O F HA L F M O ON B AY 320 C H U R C H S TREET P ROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Prepared for:

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY 501 MAIN STREET HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019

Prepared by:

PMC 1590 DREW AVENUE, SUITE 120 DAVIS, CA 95618

DECEMBER 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... 1.0-1 B. Technical Studies ...... 1.0-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Project Location and Setting ...... 2.0-1 B. Project Background and History ...... 2.0-1 C. Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals ...... 2.0-9

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

A. Background ...... 3.0-1 B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 3.0-2 C. Determination ...... 3.0-3 D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...... 3.0-4

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANYALYSIS

1. Aesthetics ...... 4.0-1 2. Agriculture and Forest Resources ...... 4.0-5 3. Air Quality ...... 4.0-8 4. Biological Resources ...... 4.0-22 5. Cultural Resources ...... 4.0-49 6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 4.0-56 7. Geology and Soils...... 4.0-63 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...... 4.0-69 9. Hydrology and Water Quality...... 4.0-75 10. Land Use and Planning...... 4.0-82 11. Mineral Resources...... 4.0-84 12. Noise...... 4.0-85 13. Population and Housing ...... 4.0-91 14. Public Services ...... 4.0-94 15. Recreation ...... 4.0-97 16. Transportation/Traffic...... 4.0-99 17. Utilities and Service Systems...... 4.0-114 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 4.0-119

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.0 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Air Quality Modeling Appendix B – Biological Resource Assessment Appendix C – Cultural Resources Evaluation Appendix D – Greenhouse Gas Modeling Appendix E – Geotechnical Feasibility Study Appendix F – Modified Phase One Environmental Assessment Report Appendix G – Preliminary Drainage Study Appendix H – Transportation Impact Analysis

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.0-1 Regional Location ...... 2.0-3

Figure 2.0-2 Project Location...... 2.0-5

Figure 2.0-3 Project Boundary and Lots ...... 2.0-7

Figure 4.4-1 Biological Study Area...... 4.4-25

Figure 4.4-2 Vegetative Communities within the Biological Study Area ...... 4.4-27

Figure 4.4-3 Previously Recorded Occurrences of Special-Status Species within One Mile of the Biological Study Area ...... 4.4-31

Figure 4.4-4 Impacts to Vegetative Communities within the Biological Study Area ...... 4.4-39

Figure 4.16-1 Project Trip Distribution Patterns ...... 4.16-107

Figure 4.16-2 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ...... 4.16-109

Figure 4.16-3 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes ...... 4.16-111

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.0-1 Proposed Lot Use and Development Potential ...... 2.0-1

Table 4.3-1 BAAQMD Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ...... 4.3-9

Table 4.3-2 Criteria Air Pollutants Summary of Common Sources and Effects ...... 4.3-11

Table 4.3-3 Project Construction Emissions (Maximum) Pounds per Day ...... 4.3-15

Table 4.3-4 Estimated Operational Emissions (Maximum) Pounds per Day ...... 4.3-17

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 4.4-1 Vegetative Communities Within the BSA ...... 4.4-23

Table 4.4-2 Habitat Types Within the BSA and Special-Status Species Associated with Those Habitat Types ...... 4.4-33

Table 4.6-1 Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gases ...... 4.6-58

Table 4.6-2 Estimated Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Pounds per Day) .... 4.6-60

Table 4.6-3 Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) ...... 4.6-60

Table 4.6-4 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicles (Metric Tons Per Year) ..... 4.6-62

Table 4.12-1 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...... 4.12-87

Table 4.12-2 Typical Construction-Equipment Vibration Levels ...... 4.12-89

Table 4.13-1 Historical Population Change City of Half Moon Bay 2000–2011...... 4.13-91

Table 4.13-2 City of Half Moon Bay 2011 Housing Units ...... 4.13-92

Table 4.14-1 CUSD Enrollment ...... 4.14-95

Table 4.15-1 City of Half Moon Bay Developed Park Acreage ...... 4.15-97

Table 4.16-1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ...... 4.16-101

Table 4.16-2 Project Trip Generation Estimates ...... 4.16-104

Table 4.16-3 Intersection Levels of Service ...... 4.16-105

Table 4.17-1 Disposal Facilities Used by Half Moon Bay and Their Capacities ...... 4.17-116

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

This document is an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the 320 Church Street Project (referred to as the proposed project). This MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines found in Chapter 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(a)(1), an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed project under review may have a significant effect on the environment. A negative declaration may be prepared instead if the lead agency finds there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. A negative declaration is a written statement describing the reasons why a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore why it would not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:

a) The Initial Study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or

b) The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, but:

(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study is 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 proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If revisions are adopted into the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is prepared.

LEAD AGENCY

The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), ―the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose...‖ In this case, the City of Half Moon Bay will serve as the lead agency for the 320 Church Street Project.

B. TECHNICAL STUDIES

Technical studies referenced in this IS/MND are listed below.

Air Quality Modeling (PMC 2011)

Biological Resource Assessment, 320 Church Street (PMC 2011)

Cultural Resources Evaluation (Archaeological Resource Service 2011)

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Greenhouse Gas Modeling (PMC 2011)

Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Acacia CE 2011)

Modified Phase One Environmental Assessment Report (Acacia CE 2011)

Preliminary Drainage Study (Acacia CE 2011)

Transportation Impact Analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2011)

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 1.0-2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING

REGIONAL SETTING

As shown in Figure 2.0-1, the proposed project is located in the City of Half Moon Bay in San Mateo County. The city covers approximately of 6.49 square miles with a total population of 11,415 (DOF 2011b). Highway 1, the Cabrillo Highway, bisects the city in a north/south direction. State Route 92 enters the city from the east and intersects Highway 1 within the city limits. The city is bounded to the north by several small, unincorporated communities, including Miramar, Princeton-by-the-Sea, El Granada, Moss Beach, and Montara. To the south of the city, two small communities, Pescadaro and La Honda, are located inland from the Pacific Coast. Half Moon Bay is situated on a broad floodplain comprising multiple terraces, with the Santa Cruz Mountains meeting the coast to form large cliffs and pocket beaches.

PROJECT SITE

The proposed project is located in the City of Half Moon Bay in San Mateo County at 320 Church Street (APNs 056-150-010 and 056-150-120) (Figure 2.0-2). The project site is bounded by Pilarcitos Creek to the north and northeast, Highway 1 to the west, the City Police Station, a vacant lot owned by the Our Lady of the Pillar Catholic Church, and the Shoreline Station retail and office property to the south, and residential development to the east. The project site has been used historically for agricultural uses, including agriculture-associated buildings on the site. Currently, the site is vacant.

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project consists of a Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Coastal Development Permit, and Use Permit to divide two parcels totaling 5.5 acres (APNs 056-150-010 and 056-150-120) into a small development with 12 residential lots and one commercial lot. As Pilarcitos Creek forms the northern boundary of the project site, the overall lot density of 11 of the proposed lots will be reduced by a Riparian Corridor Setback. The proposed lot configuration and use/development potential are shown in Figure 2.0-3 and Table 2.0-1, respectively. This IS/MND evaluates the environmental impacts of buildout of the site based on these land uses and development potential.

TABLE 2.0-1 PROPOSED LOT USE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Total Area Developable Area Lot Zoning Proposed Use (square feet) (square feet) 1 R-1 1 single-family unit 16,297 4,869 2 R-1 1 single-family unit 17,371 5,406 3 R-1 1 single-family unit 17,860 6,029 4 R-1 1 single-family unit 16,154 5,161 5 R-1 1 single-family unit 14,977 4,644 6 R-1 1 single-family unit 14,047 4,542 7 R-1 1 single-family unit 13,344 4,737 8 R-1 1 single-family unit 14,744 5,991

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Total Area Developable Area Lot Zoning Proposed Use (square feet) (square feet) 9 R-1 1 single-family unit 16,847 6,964 10 R-1 1 single-family unit 16,638 6,271 11 R-3 5 multi-family units 8,128 8,128 12 R-3 5 multi-family units 8,128 8,128 10,000 square feet of 13 CD 65,568 22,154 retail commercial 10 single-family units; 10 multi-family Totals units; and 10,000 240,103 93,024 square feet of retail commercial

The proposed project includes a private road to provide access to both the residential and commercial lots. The road will extend from Church Street to a direct connection to Highway 1. An emergency access gate on the private road will separate the proposed commercial use from local residential traffic as shown on Figure 2.0-3.

OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS

The project also includes various infrastructure improvements and connections including water system improvements to increase capacity and pressure, a new pump station and sewer improvements along Church Street, landscaping, and new fire hydrants.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 2.0-2 C A L San Mateo I County F ^ O R Half Moon Bay N I A T:\_GIS\SAN_MATEO\MXD\HALFMOON BAY\CHURCH STREET\IS\FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY.MXD - 11/17/2011 @AM10:09:08 VICINITY.MXD PROJECT 11/17/2011 - 1 BAY\CHURCH STREET\IS\FIGURE T:\_GIS\SAN_MATEO\MXD\HALFMOON

Legend

Half Moon Bay City Limit Plan Area

Source: Bing Maps, 2011

0.5 0 0.5 Figure 2.0-1 MILES ´ Project Vicinity

A RROYO L R E C O N S O IT Plan Area C R A L P I

Source: Bing Maps, 2010

500 0 500 Figure 2.0-2 ´ Project Location Map FEET

T:\_CS\Work\Half Moon Bay, City of\320 Church Steet Tentative Map\Figures T:\_CS\Work\Half Moon

Source: Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. 04080 Figure 2.0-3

FEET Project Area Boundary and Lots

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

C. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS

Additional subsequent approvals and permits that may be required from local, regional, state, and federal agencies in the processing of the proposed project that this MND may be used to support include, but are not limited to, the following:

Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Approval of revegetation and/or plant relocation plans from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

Encroachment Permit from Caltrans

Construction activity stormwater permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the RWQCB

Coastal Development Permit (local approval)

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-9

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

A. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title:

320 Church Street Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Half Moon Bay 501 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Tonya Ward, Associate Planner (650) 726-8251 [email protected]

4. Project Location:

APNs 056-150-010 and 056-150-120 320 Church Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Gibraltar Capital Cameron Jeffs 413 Main Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019

6. General Plan Designation:

Commercial-General

7. Description of Project:

The proposed project consists of a Tentative Subdivision Map with a Lot Line Adjustment to divide a 5.8-acre parcel (APNs 056-150-010 and 056-150-120) into 12 lots. The project site is located in the City‘s C-D (Commercial Downtown) zoning district, which allows for single- and multi-family development with approval of a Use Permit.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is bounded by Pilarcitos Creek to the north and northeast, Highway 1 to the west, the City Police Station, a vacant lot, and commercial and office uses to the south, and residential development to the east.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required:

In CEQA, the term ―responsible agency‖ includes all public agencies other than the lead agency that may have discretionary actions associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, the following agencies may have some role in implementing the proposed project and have been identified as potential responsible agencies:

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, as indicated by the checklist and corresponding discussion on the following pages.

Agriculture and Forestry Aesthetics Air Quality Resources

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Hazards/Hazardous Hydrology/Water Greenhouse Gas Emissions Materials Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Mandatory Findings Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems of Significance

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 3.0-2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

C. DETERMINATION

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 of the incorporated mitigation measures and 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 (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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 Title

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-3 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The following requirements for evaluating environmental impacts are cited directly from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except ―No Impact‖ answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited. A ―No Impact‖ answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A ―No Impact‖ answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards.

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) A ―Less Than Significant Impact‖ applies when the proposed project would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures.

4) ―Potentially Significant Impact‖ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more ―Potentially Significant Impact‖ entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

5) ―Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated‖ applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from ―Potentially Significant Impact‖ to a ―Less Than Significant Impact.‖ The initial study must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 3.0-4

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

1. AESTHETICS. 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 outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or

quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

SETTING

AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF THE CITY

The City of Half Moon Bay is situated on a broad floodplain comprising multiple terraces, with the Santa Cruz Mountains meeting the coast to form large cliffs and pocket beaches. As such, the city has substantial scenic resources. The upland slopes along the city‘s eastern boundary are a major attribute of the city‘s visual setting, and open fields along Highway 1 provide views of the Pacific Ocean, hills, and streams and access to the beach (City of Half Moon Bay 1993, pp. 89–90).

AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

With the exception of the bank of Pilarcitos Creek, which runs adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site, the topography of the project site and surrounding area is generally flat. The project site is visible to the public from Church Street and from Highway 1. From the cul-de-sac that is the terminus of Church Street looking west, views of the project site include vacant land covered with native grasses, flowers, and other low-lying vegetation. The Pilarcitos Creek corridor is visible along the northern boundary of the site; however, views of the creek itself are blocked by dense vegetation and trees. Views of the site from Highway 1 looking east are similar to the views of the site from Church Street.

STATE SCENIC HIGHWAYS

Highway 1 is officially designated as a state scenic highway from the southern limit of the City of Half Moon Bay to the Santa Cruz county line. In this area, Highway 1 allows for dramatic and scenic views of rocky headlands tumbling into the Pacific Ocean (Caltrans 2011).

In the vicinity of the project site, Highway 1 is not officially designated as a state scenic highway and views of the Pacific Ocean are blocked by vegetation and urban development.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

NIGHTTIME LIGHTING CONDITIONS

The project site is surrounded by urban development on all but the northern boundary of the site, including Highway 1 to the west, the City Police Station, a vacant lot owned by the Our Lady of the Pillar Catholic Church, and the Shoreline Station retail and office property to the south, and residential development to the east. As such, the existing nighttime lighting conditions in the area can generally be described as urban in nature. There are no major nighttime light sources in the vicinity of the project site.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

California Scenic Highway Program

Nighttime Sky – Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards

LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (1993)

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 18.21

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) No Impact. The project site is located in the city‘s downtown area and does not contain any features commonly associated with scenic vistas (e.g., peaks, overlooks, ridgelines). The project site does not provide, nor is it adjacent to, a public vista with ocean and coastal views. In addition, the project site is not identified as a visual resource by the Local Coastal Program Visual Resources Overlay Diagram (City of Half Moon Bay 1993, p. 217). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and no impact would occur. b) No Impact. Highway 1 is officially designated as a state scenic highway from the southern limit of the City of Half Moon Bay to the Santa Cruz county line. However, the portion of Highway 1 to the west of the project site is not officially designated as a state scenic highway. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no impact related to scenic resources or views from a designated scenic highway would occur. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. As such, the project will alter the existing visual character of the site given that it is currently vacant. However, residential and retail commercial development on the project site will simply continue the existing urban development pattern of the surrounding area, including residential, commercial/office, and public service development. Furthermore, development on the project site will be required to comply with Chapters 18.21 (Architectural Review and Site and Design Approval) and 18.37 (Visual Resource Protection Standards). Chapter 18.21 requires that all development projects be reviewed

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-2 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

pursuant to design approval criteria for building height, elevations, roof material, exterior colors and textures, and access. Criteria include requirements that the height, material, texture, color, and detail of development be appropriate for the intended function and compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures and functions. Colors of wall and roofing materials are required to blend with the natural landscape and be non-reflective. The criteria also require that landscaping be in keeping with the design and character of the development, preferably clustered in natural-appearing groups. These criteria will ensure that development on the project site will be reviewed for overall character and quality of design as well as aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding existing development. Chapter 18.37 requires new development within planned development areas, such as the project site, to comply with standards regarding landscaping, signs, screening, lighting, parking areas, and utilities. These standards are specifically intended to enhance the visual quality of new development in the city and to allow development only when it is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas. Therefore, although alteration of the visual character of the site will occur, development will be consistent with the general character of the area and will not be considered a degradation of that character. Off-site infrastructure associated with the project will include water and sewer improvements along Church Street. These improvements will be underground and within existing rights-of-way; therefore, visual impacts would be limited to temporary ground disturbance and equipment during construction. For these reasons, overall impacts associated with the degradation of visual character of the project site and surroundings would be considered less than significant. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. This development will introduce additional sources of exterior lighting to the project site. For the residential uses, lighting will consist of small-scale fixtures associated with stairways, garage entrances, patios, and other similar areas, as well as sidewalk and street lighting. For the commercial area, more intensive lighting may be used for parking areas, security, and signage.

Outdoor lighting regulations in Title 24 include requirements intended to help to reduce the impacts of light pollution, light trespass, and glare. The requirements regulate lighting characteristics such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. In addition, Section 18.37.060 (Standards for Utilities, Lighting and Signs) of the City‘s Municipal Code requires all exterior lighting to be functional, subtle, and compatible with a building‘s architectural style, materials, and colors. In addition to these existing regulations, the following mitigation is required to ensure that project site lighting does not spill over to adjacent properties. This is particularly important for the interface between commercial areas and the new residences.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-3 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.1d-1 The project applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts associated with increased nighttime lighting:

Light fixtures, including roadway illumination and lighting for commercial uses, shall be the minimum height needed for public safety and shall be shielded to downcast light to prevent glare on adjacent properties.

Illuminated entries and signs shall utilize direct lighting low to the ground and be limited to only the immediate vicinity of the entry.

Landscape lighting shall be unobtrusive and shielded to prevent glare.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of building permits

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Compliance with Title 24 regulations, the City‘s Municipal Code, and mitigation measure MM 4.1d-1, all of which address the intensity of lighting on the site as well as shielding to prevent off-site impacts, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-4 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. 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 nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,

or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526, and by Government Code Section 51104(f)), or timberland zoned timberland production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of

forestland 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 nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?

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 Department 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.

SETTING

As of 2008, San Mateo County contained approximately 54,439 acres of agricultural land as designated by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (DOC 2008a). FMMP is a non-regulatory program within the California Department of Conservation (DOC) that produces Important Farmland maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California‘s agricultural resources. The Important Farmland maps identify five agriculture-related categories—Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land—rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. Each is summarized below (DOC 2004, pp. 6–7):

Prime Farmland (P): Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-5 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Farmland of Statewide Importance (S): Farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland (U): Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state‘s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance (L): Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county‘s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

Grazing Land (G): Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.

Urban and Built-Up Land (D): Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

Other Land (X): Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

Water (W): Perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.

Although the project site was historically used for agricultural purposes, it is currently designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP (DOC 2008b). There are several parcels of Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland to the east, southeast, and west of the project site. These parcels are not immediately adjacent to the project site and are currently developed with, or surrounded by, agricultural uses.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Williamson Act – The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is a non-mandated state program, administered by counties and cities to preserve agricultural land and discourage the premature conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use and, in return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value (DOC 2011). The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-6 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (1993)

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) No Impact. The project site is designated by the FMMP as Urban and Built-Up Land and does not include any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (DOC 2008b). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not directly convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a nonagricultural use and no impact would occur. b) No Impact. The project site is zoned C-D (Commercial Downtown) and is not under a Williamson Act contract. There are no agriculturally zoned parcels in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact associated with conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. The City of Half Moon Bay does not contain any land zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) No Impact. The City of Half Moon Bay does not contain any timberland or soil suitable for timberland (City of Half Moon Bay 1993). Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The placement of nonagricultural uses adjacent to agricultural uses can result in conflicts that inadvertently place growth pressure on agricultural lands to convert to urban uses. Although lands to the east, southeast, and west of the project site are designated by the FMMP as Prime Farmland and Unique Farmland, these lands are developed with and surrounded by urban uses and would not be viable for ongoing agricultural production. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment which could indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use, and this impact would be considered less than significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-7 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable

federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

SETTING

The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The SFBAAB comprises a single air district, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which encompasses Napa, Marin, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, the southern portion of Sonoma County, and the western portion of Solano County. The project site is located in the peninsula portion of the air basin.

Within the SFBAAB, there are eleven major climatological subregions. The peninsula region extends from northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. Coastal towns, including Half Moon Bay, experience a high incidence of cool, foggy weather in the summer. Cities in the southeastern peninsula experience warmer temperatures and fewer foggy days because the marine layer is blocked by the ridgeline to the west.

The blocking effect of the Santa Cruz Mountains results in variations in summertime maximum temperatures in different parts of the peninsula. For example, in coastal areas and San Francisco, the mean maximum summer temperatures are in the mid-60s, while in Redwood City the mean maximum summer temperatures are in the low 80s. Mean minimum temperatures during the winter months are in the high 30s to low 40s on the eastern side of the peninsula and in the low 40s on the coast.

Two important gaps in the Santa Cruz Mountains occur on the peninsula. The larger of the two is the San Bruno Gap, extending from Fort Funston on the ocean to the San Francisco Airport. Because the gap is oriented in the same northwest to southeast direction as the prevailing winds and because the elevations along the gap are less than 200 feet, marine air is easily able to penetrate into the bay. The other gap is the Crystal Springs Gap, between Half Moon Bay and San Carlos. As the sea breeze strengthens on summer afternoons, the gap permits maritime air to pass across the mountains, and its cooling effect is commonly seen from San Mateo to Redwood City.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-8 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the peninsula, with higher wind speeds usually found along the coast. Winds on the eastern side of the peninsula are often high in certain areas, such as near the San Bruno Gap and the Crystal Springs Gap. The prevailing winds along the peninsula coast are from the west, although individual sites can show significant differences. On the east side of the mountains, winds are generally from the west, although wind patterns in this area are often influenced greatly by local topographic features.

Air pollution potential is highest along the southeastern portion of the peninsula. This is the area most protected from the high winds and fog of the marine layer. Pollutant transport from upwind sites is common. In the southeastern portion of the peninsula, air pollutant emissions are relatively high due to motor vehicle traffic as well as stationary sources. At the northern end of the peninsula in San Francisco, pollutant emissions are high, especially from motor vehicle congestion. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, can build up in ―urban canyons.‖ Winds are generally fast enough to carry the pollutants away before they can accumulate.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called ―criteria‖ pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The national and California state ambient air quality standards and attainment status are summarized in Table 4.3-1. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas.

TABLE 4.3-1 BAAQMD AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND ATTAINMENT STATUS

California Attainment National Attainment Pollutant Averaging Time Standards1 Status Standards2,3 Status 0.070 ppm 8 Hours N9 0.075 ppm N4 (137µg/m3) Ozone 0.09 ppm 1 Hour N See Note 5 (180 µg/m3) 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 8 Hours A A6 (10 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3) Carbon Monoxide 20 ppm 35 ppm 1 Hour A A (23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3) 0.18 ppm 1 Hour A 0.100 ppb11 U (339 µg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppb Annual Arithmetic Mean 3 3 A (57 µg/m ) (100 µg/m ) 0.04 ppm Sulfur Dioxide12 24 Hours A N/A A (105 µg/m3)

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-9 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

California Attainment National Attainment Pollutant Averaging Time Standards1 Status Standards2,3 Status 3 Hours -- A N/A A

0.25 ppm 1 Hour A A (665 µg/m3) 75 ppb

Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 N7 N/A Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hours 50 µg/m3 N 150 µg/m3 U

3 7 3 Particulate Matter – Fine Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m N 15 µg/m N (PM2.5) 24 Hours N/A 35 µg/m3 Note:10 N Sulfates 24 Hours 25 µg/m3 A N/A Calendar Quarter N/A 1.5 µg/m3 A Lead 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3) A N/A 0.03 ppm Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour U N/A (42 µg/m3) No Vinyl Chloride 0.01 ppm 24 Hours information N/A (chloroethene) (26 µg/m3) available Visibility Reducing 8 Hour

See Note 8 U N/A Particles (10:00 to 18:00 PST) Notes: A=Attainment; N=Nonattainment; U=Unclassified; N/A = Not Applicable; mg/m3=milligrams per cubic meter; ppm=parts per million; ppb=parts per billion; µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard. 2. National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for ozone, particulates, and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the three-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the three-year average of the 99th percentile 3 of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m . The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the three-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the three-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the three-year average of annual averages spatially averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard. 3. National air quality standards are set by the USEPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4. In June 2004, the Bay Area was designated as a marginal nonattainment area of the national 8-hour ozone standard. The USEPA lowered the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.080 to 0.075 ppm (i.e., 75 ppb) effective May 27, 2008. In early January 2010, the USEPA proposed a stricter air quality standard for ground-level ozone. The new ozone proposal would set the primary smog standard at a level between 0.060 and 0.070 parts per million (ppm) measured over an 8-hour period. 5. The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by the USEPA on June 15, 2005. 6. In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard. 7. In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 8. Statewide VRP Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range. 9. The 8-hour California ozone standard was approved by CARB on April 28, 2005, and became effective on May 17, 2006.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-10 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

3 3 10. The USEPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m to 35 µg/m in 2006. The USEPA designated the Bay Area as nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation is December 14, 2009, and the Air District has three years to develop a plan, called a State Implementation Plan (SIP), that demonstrates the Bay Area will achieve the revised standard by December 14, 2014. The SIP for the new PM2.5 standard must be submitted to the USEPA by December 14, 2012. 11. To attain this standard, the three-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). 12. On June 2, 2010, the USEPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS, however, must continue to be used until one year following USEPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The USEPA expects to designate areas by June 2012. Source: CARB 2010a

As depicted in Table 4.3-1, the SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, coarse particles (PM10) between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter, and fine particles (PM2.5) less than 2.5 microns in diameter for state standards, and as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM2.5 for federal standards. These are problematic pollutants, and the health effects and major sources of these pollutants are described in Table 4.3-2.

TABLE 4.3-2 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS SUMMARY OF COMMON SOURCES AND EFFECTS

Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health & Welfare Effects Carbon Monoxide (CO) An odorless, colorless gas formed when Reduces the ability of blood to deliver carbon in fuel is not burned completely; oxygen to vital tissues, effecting the a component of motor vehicle exhaust. cardiovascular and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart combustion for motor vehicles and problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain. industrial sources. Motor vehicles, Contributes to global warming, and nutrient electric utilities, and other sources that overloading which deteriorates water quality. burn fuel. Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between Irritates and causes inflammation of the volatile organic compounds (VOC) and mucous membranes and lung airways; causes nitrous oxides (NOx) in the presence of wheezing, coughing and pain when inhaling sunlight. VOCs are also commonly deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates referred to as reactive organic gases lung and heart problems. Damages plants; (ROGs). Common sources of these reduces crop yield. Damages rubber, some precursor pollutants include motor textiles and dyes. vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline storage and transport, solvents, paints and landfills. Particulate Matter Power plants, steel mills, chemical Increased respiratory symptoms, such as (PM10 & PM2.5) plants, unpaved roads and parking lots, irritation of the airways, coughing, or wood-burning stoves and fireplaces, difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma; automobiles and others. development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-11 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Pollutant Major Man-Made Sources Human Health & Welfare Effects

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A colorless, nonflammable gas formed Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart when fuel containing sulfur is burned; problems. In the presence of moisture and when gasoline is extracted from oil; or oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric when metal is extracted from ore. acid which can damage marble, iron and Examples are petroleum refineries, steel; damage crops and natural vegetation. cement manufacturing, metal processing Impairs visibility. Precursor to acid rain. facilities, locomotives, and ships. Lead Metallic element emitted from metal Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and refineries, smelters, battery kidney damage, neurological disorders, manufacturers, iron and steel producers, cancer, lowered IQ. Affects animals, plants, use of leaded fuels by racing and aircraft and aquatic ecosystems. industries. Source: CAPCOA 2011

Toxic Air Contaminants

In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Clean Air Act (CAA) required the USEPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was adopted in 1988, required CARB to establish California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS).

LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were updated and released in May 2011. This is an advisory document that provides the lead agency, consultants, and project applicants with uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. The handbook contains the following applicable components (BAAQMD 2011):

 Criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse air quality impact.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-12 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

 Specific procedures and modeling protocols for quantifying and analyzing air quality impacts.

 Methods available to mitigate air quality impacts.

 Information for use in air quality assessments and environmental documents that will be updated more frequently such as air quality data, regulatory setting, climate, and topography.

The BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for rulemaking, permitting, and enforcement activities affecting stationary sources in the Bay Area. Specific rules and regulations adopted by the BAAQMD limit the emissions that can be generated by various activities and identify specific pollution reduction measures that must be implemented in association with various activities. These rules regulate not only emissions of the six criteria air pollutants but also toxic emissions and acutely hazardous nonradioactive materials emissions.

With respect to the construction activities associated with development proposed by the project, applicable BAAQMD regulations would relate to portable equipment (e.g., concrete batch plants, and gasoline- or diesel-powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, pile drivers, and cranes), architectural coatings, and paving materials. Equipment used during project construction would be subject to the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 2 (Permits), Rule 1 (General Requirements) with respect to portable equipment unless exempt under Rule 2-1-105 (Exemption, Registered Statewide Portable Equipment); BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings); and BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts).

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD prepares plans to attain ambient air quality standards in the air basin. The BAAQMD prepares ozone attainment plans for the national ozone standard and clean air plans for the California standard both in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan to address the air basin‘s nonattainment status with the national 1-hour ozone standard and the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). The purpose of the Clean Air Plan is to:

1. Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone;

2. Consider the impacts of ozone control measures on particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan;

3. Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and

4. Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2009– 2012 time frame.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-13 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The emissions inventories contained in the ozone attainment plan and clean air plan are based on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled for the region. These inventories are largely based on the predicted growth identified in regional and community plans and contribute to the cumulative air quality impact of all development projects. Projects that result in an increase in population or employment growth beyond that identified in regional or community plans could result in increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and subsequently increase mobile source emissions, which could conflict with the BAAQMD‘s air quality planning efforts. Consistency with these air quality plans is also determined if the project supports the plans‘ primary goals with the inclusion of applicable control measures and does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures.

The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ozone attainment plan or clean air plan. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. Based on the city‘s average household size of 2.78 persons per household, these improvements will directly induce growth of approximately 56 persons (2.78 persons per household x 20 units = 55.6 persons).

The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation of the City‘s General Plan (no General Plan Amendment is required) as well as Measure D. As previously stated, BAAQMD air quality planning efforts are based on air pollutant reduction strategies derived, in part, on regional population, housing, and employment projections originating with adopted general plans and regulations. Since the proposed project is consistent with the adopted City of Half Moon Bay General Plan as well as the residential growth limiting regulation, Measure D of 1999, the proposed project would not result in an increase in population or employment growth, and thus VMT, beyond that anticipated in the ozone attainment plan and clean air plan.

In addition, as discussed in more detail below (see Tables 4.3-3 and 4.3-4), the proposed project would not result in the generation of construction-generated or operational- related criteria air pollutants and/or precursor emissions that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Furthermore, as described below under impact b), the project would be conditioned as part of project construction to adhere to BAAQMD‘s basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2011). Implementation of the BAAQMD‘s basic construction mitigation measures during construction would ensure construction-related emissions are minimized.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The proposed project would support the goals of the ozone attainment plan and clean air plan, include feasible control measures, would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures, and would not result in vehicle trips greater than the projected population increase for the project. Therefore, the project would be considered consistent with BAAQMD air planning efforts and this would be considered a less than significant impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD has developed project-level thresholds of significance in order to provide a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. To meet the project-level threshold of significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts, the proposed project must emit no more than 54 pounds per day (lbs/day) of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and/or PM2.5 and no more than 82 lbs/day of PM10.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term emissions from construction activities. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but possess the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, paving, the motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, the movement of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOX emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions.

The predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOx, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) associated with project construction are summarized in Table 4.3-3. The projected criteria pollutant emissions resulting from construction activities were estimated by PMC using the URBEMIS 2007 computer program. Results of the modeling conducted by PMC are included in Appendix A.

TABLE 4.3-3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY

Construction Phase ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Construction Activities (2012) 40.87 21.99 11.08 3.08 12.42 BAAQMD Significance Criteria 54 54 82 54 None Significant? No No No No N/A

Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the URBEMIS 2007 computer program. See Appendix A for modeling outputs.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-15 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Maximum daily emissions would total approximately 41 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG, 22 lbs/day of NOx, 11 lbs/day of PM10, and approximately 3 lbs/day of PM2.5. Actual daily emissions would vary from day to day and would be dependent on the specific activities conducted. Therefore, during construction of the proposed project, emissions generated would not exceed the BAAQMD‘s thresholds of significance for air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 4.3-3, which would be considered a less than significant impact. However, the BAAQMD recommends the implementation of all basic construction mitigation measures for all proposed projects as best practice, whether or not construction-related emissions exceed applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, the following measures would be conditioned as part of project construction to adhere to BAAQMD‘s basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD‘s CEQA Guidelines (2011), which include the following:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. 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.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

Implementation of the BAAQMD‘s basic construction mitigation measures during construction (also see mitigation measure MM 4.3d-1 below) would ensure construction- related emissions are minimized.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-16 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through a complex series of chemical reactions between ROG and NOx, while the principal sources of PM10 and PM2.5 include fuel burned in cars and trucks, power plants, factories, fireplaces, agricultural activities, and woodstoves. Implementation of the proposed project would result in regional emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, as well as ROG, NOx, and carbon monoxide (CO), due to increased use of motor vehicles, thereby increasing potential operational air quality impacts. Increases in operational air impacts with implementation of the proposed project would generally consist of two sources: stationary and mobile.

PMC estimated criteria pollutant emissions generated during a typical year of project operation. In addition to projected stationary emissions, mobile emissions have been quantified. The results of the modeling are summarized in Table 4.3-4 and are included in Appendix A.

TABLE 4.3-4 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM) POUNDS PER DAY

Total Emissions Pounds Per Day Emission Source ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO Summer Operational Emissions 3.69 2.30 4.79 0.91 26.22 Winter Operational Emissions 6.49 3.51 6.42 2.48 35.64

BAAQMD Significance 54 54 82 54 -- Thresholds (lbs/day) Significant? No No No No N/A

Source: Emissions modeled by PMC using the URBEMIS 2007 computer program. See Appendix A for modeling outputs. Notes: Refer to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section (Subsection 4.6) for discussion of carbon dioxide emissions.

As demonstrated in Table 4.3-4, the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of BAAQMD thresholds for air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the long-term operational air quality impacts of the proposed project would be considered a less than significant impact.

The proposed project would not result in the exceedance of project-level thresholds of significance for construction- and/or operational-related criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts and is therefore less than significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-17 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS c) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the BAAQMD‘s CEQA Guidelines (2011), for projects that do not individually have significant operational air quality impacts, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan.

As previously mentioned, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state standards for PM10. Implementation of the proposed project may cumulatively contribute to the air basin‘s state of nonattainment. However, the proposed project would not induce growth beyond that anticipated in the City‘s General Plan, and based on project-related emission estimates (see impact b), above), the proposed project would not result in substantial impacts to the levels of any criteria pollutant. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Sensitive receptors are generally defined as facilities that house or attract groups of children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, residential areas, and convalescent facilities are examples of sensitive receptors. The project site is considered a sensitive receptor (following construction of residential uses) and is adjacent to other residential areas.

Short-Term Construction Toxics

Though the proposed project could create a hazard to the residents to the east of the project site through exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations such as PM2.5 and/or other toxic air contaminants during construction activities, these impacts are anticipated to be temporary and short term. Construction activities would involve the use of a variety of gasoline- or diesel-powered equipment that emits exhaust fumes. However, the duration of exposure would be short, and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Furthermore, mitigation measure MM 4.3d-1 would ensure fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) control measures are incorporated into the project plans to reduce the emissions of fugitive dust during construction activities at the project area as well as diesel fume emission controls. Implementation of these measures would ensure workers and sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project area would not be exposed to substantial fugitive dust emissions or heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment fumes.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.3d-1 The project applicant shall specify in project plans the implementation of BAAQMD‘s basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD‘s CEQA Guidelines (described under b) above). The measures shall be implemented as necessary to adequately control dust. In addition, the following measures shall also be implemented in order to reduce the emissions of toxic pollutants generated by heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction.

a. Keep all construction equipment in proper tune in accordance with manufacturers‘ specifications.

b. Use late-model heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment during construction to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-18 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

c. Use diesel-powered equipment that has been retrofitted with after- treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that it is readily available in the San Francisco Bay Area.

d. Use low-emission diesel fuel for all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating and refueling at construction sites to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area. (This does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the site.)

e. Utilize alternative-fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the San Francisco Bay Area.

f. Limit truck and equipment idling time to 5 minutes or less.

g. Rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible.

Timing/Implementation: During construction

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.3d-1 would ensure that any sensitive receptors in the vicinity would not be exposed to construction-related air toxics.

Localized Carbon Monoxide

Localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations near roadway intersections are a function of traffic volume, speed, and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because carbon monoxide disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Under specific meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels with respect to sensitive receptors, often referred to as a ―CO hotspot.‖

Based on BAAQMD guidance, projects meeting all of the following screening criteria would be considered to have a less than significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plans, and local congestion management agency plans.

2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

3. 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).

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-19 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The project would not increase traffic volumes at any intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited as determined by the traffic impact study prepared for the project (Hexagon 2011, p. 21). As such, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for carbon monoxide.

Toxic Air Contaminants

As previously described, there are many different types of toxic air contaminants (TACs), with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes, such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, and commercial operations, such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners. Mobile sources of air toxics include freeways and major roadways. These roadways are sources of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has listed as a toxic air contaminant.

The proposed project would not be a source of TACs. However, there is a potential that the project site may be located in an area that is exposed to substantial TAC emissions. In April 2005, CARB released the Land Use and Air Quality Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which offers guidance on siting sensitive land uses in proximity to sources of air toxics. Sensitive land uses identified in the handbook include residential communities, schools and schoolyards, daycare centers, parks and playgrounds, and hospitals and medical facilities. Freeways and roadways are particular sources of air toxics treated in the guidance. The handbook recommends that sensitive land uses be sited no closer than 500 feet from a freeway or major roadway with 100,000 vehicles per day. This 500-foot buffer area was developed to protect sensitive receptors from exposure to diesel PM and was based on traffic-related studies that showed a 70 percent drop in PM concentrations at a distance of 500 feet from the roadway. Presumably, acute and chronic risks as well as lifetime cancer risk due to diesel PM exposure are lowered proportionately.

The project site is over 640 feet south of State Route 92 and therefore beyond the CARB- recommended buffer area. However, the project site is also located directly adjacent to Highway 1, which traverses the western boundary of the site. Yet, based on 2009 volume data from Caltrans for Highway 1 in the vicinity of the proposed project area, approximately 57,000 vehicle trips may travel past the project area on an average day (Caltrans 2009). The estimated 57,000 vehicle trips during an average day are under the CARB threshold of 100,000 vehicles per day. Furthermore, the retail commercial aspect of the proposed project would be constructed between Highway 1 and the proposed residential uses, which would act as a barrier between traffic pollutants and the sensitive residential land uses.

For the reasons noted, future receptors would not be negatively affected by toxic air contaminants generated at any of the major transportation facilities in the vicinity. There are no other potential sources of air toxics in the vicinity of the project.

Impacts to sensitive receptors are considered to be less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-20 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS e) No Impact. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines classify a project that could create objectionable odors as including any of the following: wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, transfer stations, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, rendering plants, coffee roasters, and painting/coating operations including auto body shops. The proposed project would not generate objectionable odors. In addition, the proposed project is not located downwind from any significant odor sources (e.g., landfills, sewage treatment plants) that could affect persons on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people or subject people to objectionable odors, and no impact would occur.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-21 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 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 US 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? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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?

SETTING

This section is based on the Biological Resource Assessment (PMC 2011) prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B). The Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) describes on-site vegetative communities, identifies jurisdictional waters of the United States, and assesses the potential for occurrence of special-status plant and wildlife species within the biological study area (BSA), which is made up of the proposed project footprint, combined with a 200-foot buffer as required by Section 18.38.035(B) of the City‘s Municipal Code.

VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES

Vegetative communities are assemblages of plant species that occur in the same area and which are defined by species composition and relative abundance. The vegetative community descriptions and nomenclature used in this section generally correlate to wildlife habitat types in

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-22 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California or California Wildlife Habitats Relationships (CWHR) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Terrestrial vegetative communities within the BSA include urban, annual grassland, and montane riparian. Aquatic vegetative communities include the riverine habitat associated with Pilarcitos Creek. The BSA is mapped in Figure 4.4-1. Vegetative communities within the BSA are mapped in Figure 4.4-2 and summarized in Table 4.4-1.

TABLE 4.4-1 VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE BSA

Vegetative Communities Acreage Terrestrial Communities Urban 8.8 Annual Grassland 4.1 Montane Riparian 5.0 Cypress Windrow 0.3 Aquatic Communities Riverine 0.5 Total 18.2

Source: PMC 2011

Urban/Ruderal

Urban habitat is distinguished by the presence of both native and exotic species maintained in a relatively static composition within a downtown, residential, or suburban setting. Species richness in these areas depends greatly upon community design (i.e., open space considerations) and proximity to the natural environment (McBride and Reid 1988). The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database classifies urban habitat into five different vegetation types: tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover (McBride and Reid 1988). Tree groves refer to conditions typically found in city parks, green belts, and cemeteries. These areas vary in tree height, spacing, crown shape, and understory conditions; however, they have a continuous canopy. Street strip vegetation, located roadside, varies with species type but typically includes a ground cover of grass. Shade trees and lawns refer to characteristic residential landscape, which is reminiscent of natural savannas. Lawns are composed of a variety of grasses, maintained at a uniform height with continuous ground cover through irrigation and fertilization. Shrub cover refers to areas commonly landscaped and maintained with hedges, as typically found in commercial districts. All five types of urban habitat are generally found in combination creating considerable edge effect, which can be more valuable to wildlife than any one individual unit (McBride and Reid 1988). Some ornamental vegetation is present within the urban habitat such as street strip trees and shrub cover. Areas that are paved or covered in gravel are included in urban habitat designation.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-23 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Ruderal (roadside) communities occur in areas of disturbances such as along roadsides, trails, parking lots, etc. These communities are subjected to ongoing or past disturbances (e.g., vehicle activities, mountain bikes, mowing). Ruderal habitat in these disturbed areas supports a diverse weedy flora. Vascular plant species associated with these areas typically include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus arvensis), and common mallow (Malva neglecta). Mediterranean hoary-mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), wild oat (Avena fatua), and curly dock (Rumex crispus) are also typical of this area. Dominant species found within ruderal habitat include introduced grasses such as bromes (Bromus spp.), Italian rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), and wild oat. The areas designated as ruderal habitat include areas that have been recently or continually disturbed.

Birds and mammals that occur in urban habitat typically include introduced species adapted to human habitation, including rock pigeon (Columba livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house mouse (Mus musculus) and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). Some native species persist in commercial development, including western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Brewer‘s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) (McBride and Reid 1988).

Plant species observed within the urban component of the BSA include Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), radish (Raphanus sativus), bristly hawksbeard (Crepis setosa), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), prostrate spurge (Chamaesyce maculata), common mallow, buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata), wild oat, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and scarlet passion flower (Passiflora coccinea). No vertebrate animals were observed within the urban component of the BSA.

Annual Grassland

Annual grassland comprises mostly non-native annuals, primarily of Mediterranean origin, but can also include a variety of native herbaceous species. Non-native grasslands have replaced most native perennial grasslands in San Mateo County and throughout most of California. Annual grassland generally occurs on flat plains to gently rolling foothills (Kie 2005). The dominant species found within these annual grasslands include introduced grasses, such as Italian ryegrass, Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess brome (B. hordeaceus), barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis), and wild oat. Common forbs observed within these grasslands include mustards (Brassica sp.), spring vetch (Vicia sativa), and field bindweed.

Annual grasslands generally support lower wildlife diversity than woodland and shrub-dominated habitats but are invaluable to the grassland-dependent species found in the county. A great diversity and abundance of insects rely on grasslands. Reptiles found in annual grasslands include western fence lizard and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer). Birds that are common in this habitat include western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Say‘s phoebe (Sayornis saya), and savanna sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). Mammals known to use this habitat include California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama), and coyote (Canis latrans) (Kie 2005).

This portion of the BSA is dominated by wild oat and large, prostrate-growing patches of Himalayan blackberry. Violet-green swallows (Tachycinecta thalassina) were the only vertebrate animals observed within the annual grassland portion of the BSA.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-24 Legend

Biological Study Area Plan Area

Source: Bing Maps, 2011 200 0 200 Figure 4.4-1 ´ Biological Study Area FEET

Legend

Biological Study Area Plan Area Vegetative Communities Annual Grassland Cypress Hedge Open Water/Riverine Riparian Urban

100 0 100 Figure 4.4-2 ´ Vegetative Communities within the Biological Study Area FEET

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Montane Riparian

The vegetation of montane riparian areas is quite variable and often structurally diverse. Generally, montane riparian occurs as a narrow, often dense grove of broad-leaved, winter deciduous trees up to 30 meters tall with a sparse understory (Grenfell 1988a). The transition between montane riparian and adjacent non-riparian vegetation is often abrupt, especially where the topography is steep. This habitat intergrades with montane chaparral, montane hardwood, montane hardwood/conifer, lodgepole pine, and wet meadow habitats. Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), willow (Salix spp.), dogwood (Cornus spp.), wild azalea (Rhododendron canescens), wild grape (Vitis californica), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and a high diversity of forbs are commonly found in montane riparian habitat. Riparian areas are found associated with montane lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows as well as with rivers, streams, and springs. Water may be permanent or ephemeral (Grenfell 1988a).

All riparian habitats have an exceptionally high value for many wildlife species by providing water, thermal cover, migration corridors, and diverse nesting and feeding opportunities. The shape of many riparian zones, particularly the linear nature of streams, maximizes the development of edge habitat, which is highly productive for wildlife. Common wildlife species include bank swallow (Riparia riparia), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), Wilson‘s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), Swainson‘s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) (Grenfell 1988a).

The vegetative community within the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor in the BSA was dominated by arroyo willow, with an understory composed almost entirely of dense stands of Himalayan blackberry and cape ivy (Delairea odorata). Other vegetation observed included horsetail (Equisetum arvense), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and a single large Monterey pine (Pinus radiata).

AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Riverine

Riverine habitat only includes the open water areas and areas below the ordinary high water mark. Riverine habitats are found contiguous to riparian, seasonal wetland, and fresh emergent wetland habitats (Grenfell 1988b). Rivers and streams are characterized by intermittent or continually running water. A stream originates at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge. Velocity generally declines at progressively lower altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy (Grenfell 1988b). Water moss and heavily branched filamentous algae are held to rocks by strong holdfasts. Emergent vegetation grows along riverbanks, and duckweed may float on the surface. In the BSA, there is riverine habitat associated with Pilarcitos Creek.

Common wildlife species found among riverine habitat include gulls, terns, and raptor species that hunt over the open waters. The open water zones of large rivers provide resting and escape cover for many species of waterfowl. Near-shore waters provide food for waterfowl, herons, and shorebirds. Many species of insectivorous birds (swallows, swifts, flycatchers) hunt their prey over water. Species expected to occur within this habitat include bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), and western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata; a

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-29 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

California species of special concern). Some of the more common mammals found in riverine habitats include northern river otter (Lontra canadensis), mink (Neovison vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and the ubiquitous American beaver (Castor canadensis). Other mammals may visit these sites to forage or drink, including mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), black- tailed jackrabbit, and coyote (Grenfell 1988b).

Pilarcitos Creek is designated critical habitat for central California coast ESU steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) have been documented within 1 mile of the BSA in the riverine habitat of Pilarcitos Creek.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Special-status species are commonly characterized as species that are at potential risk or actual risk to their persistence in a given area or across their native habitat (locally, regionally, or nationally) and are identified by a state and/or federal resource agency as such. These agencies include governmental agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or private organizations such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The degree to which a species is at risk of extinction is the limiting factor on a species‘ status designation. Risk factors to a species‘ or population‘s persistence include habitat loss, increased mortality factors (take, electrocution, etc.), invasive species, and environmental toxins. In context of environmental review, special-status species are defined by the following codes:

Species that are listed, proposed, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11 – listed; 61 Federal Register [FR] 7591, February 28, 1996 candidates);

Species that are listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code 1992 Section 2050 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 670.1 et seq.);

Species that are designated as Species of Special Concern by the CDFG;

Species that are designated as Fully Protected by the CDFG (Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515); and

Species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA (14 CCR Section 15380).

Each special-status species identified in the database search has been addressed individually in Appendix B of the BRA. The potential for each special-status species to occur within the biological study area was assessed based on known occurrences of the species within a 1-mile radius of the BSA, a 5-mile radius of the BSA, suitability of habitat within the BSA, and professional expertise. Figure 4.4-3 shows the previously recorded occurrences of special-status species within 1 mile of the BSA. Table 4.4-2 shows the habitat types within the BSA and the special-status species associated with those habitats which have the potential to be impacted by the proposed project.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-30 2

2 4

1 1 5 5 T:\_GIS\SAN_MATEO\MXD\HALFMOON BAY\CHURCH STREET\IS\FIGURE 5 CNDDB.MXD - 11/17/2011 CNDDB.MXD11/17/2011 -@ AM 10:12:48 5 BAY\CHURCH STREET\IS\FIGURE T:\_GIS\SAN_MATEO\MXD\HALFMOON

Legend

Biological Study Area Plan Area CNDDB Occurrence Type Amphibian 3 4 Bird Reptile Map ID Scientific Name Common Name Federal Listing State Listing Rare Plant Rank 1 Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly None None 2 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat None None Invertebrate 3 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus Choris' popcorn-flower None None 1B.2 4 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Threatened None 5 Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco garter snake Endangered Endangered Plant Source: Bing Maps, 2011; CA Dept of Fish and Game CNDDB, 2011

1,000 0 1,000 Figure 4.4-3 ´ Previously Recorded Occurrences of Special Status Species FEET within One Mile of the Biological Study Area

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

TABLE 4.4-2 HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE BSA AND SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE HABITAT TYPES

Associated Special-Status Species Habitat Acreage Within the BSA (common name) California red-legged frog San Francisco garter snake Annual Grassland 4.1 Fragrant fritillary Raptors and other migratory birds (Foraging) California red-legged frog Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Montane Riparian San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 5.1 San Francisco garter snake Raptors and other migratory birds (foraging/nesting) California red-legged frog San Francisco garter snake Riverine 0.5 Central California coast ESU steelhead Tidewater goby Cypress Windrow Raptors and other migratory birds (nesting) 0.3

Source: PMC 2011

Special-Status Plant Species

Based on the database search for special-status plants and habitat suitability within the BSA, the following plant has the potential to occur within the BSA:

Fragrant Fritillary

The fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) is designated as list 1B.2 by the CNPS. This small, bulbiferous herb belongs to the lily family (Liliaceae) and grows in cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland. This plant often grows in serpentine soils and is threatened by grazing, agriculture, urbanization, and non-native plants. It blooms from February to April (CNPS 2011). There is one previously recorded occurrence of this species within a 5-mile radius of the BSA (CDFG 2011a). The annual grassland portion of the BSA may be suitable habitat for this species.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Based on the database search for special-status wildlife and habitat suitability within the BSA, the species described below have the potential to occur within the BSA.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-33 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Fish

Tidewater Goby

The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is a small grey-brown fish with enlarged pectoral fins rarely exceeding 50 millimeters in total length. It is federally endangered and a California species of special concern (CDFG 2011a). Tidewater gobies are found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches where the water is brackish to fresh, and they are able to complete their entire life cycle in either fresh or brackish water. The fish feeds upon small crustaceans, aquatic insects, and mollusks. This species is vulnerable to predation by invasive fish and frogs, habitat loss, and environmental degradation through pollution, siltation, and urban development (Moyle et al. 1995).

As there are previously recorded occurrences of this species in other San Mateo County coastal creeks (CDFG 2011a), and Pilarcitos Creek flows into Half Moon Bay less than 2 miles from the BSA, the waters of Pilarcitos Creek downstream from the BSA may constitute suitable habitat for the tidewater goby.

Steelhead – Central California Coastal ESU

The central California coastal ESU (ecologically significant unit) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) is a federally threatened anadromous salmonid fish (CDFG 2011a; USFWS 2011a).

Steelhead are the anadromous, or ocean-going, form of rainbow trout, a salmonid native to western North America and the Pacific coast of Asia. In North America, steelhead are found in Pacific Ocean drainages from southern California to Alaska and in Asia in coastal streams of the Kamchatka Peninsula. Spawning populations in California are known to have occurred in coastal streams from Malibu Creek (Los Angeles County) to the Smith River near the Oregon border and in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems. The present distribution and abundance of steelhead in California has been greatly reduced from historical levels (McEwen 2001).

Steelhead are similar to Pacific salmon in their ecological requirements. They spend most of their lives in the ocean, where they grow to relatively large size, and then return to fresh water to spawn. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning. Repeat spawning is common; however, post-spawning survival rates are generally quite low (10 to 20 percent). Steelhead do not necessarily migrate to sea at a specific age. Some individuals remain in a stream, mature, and even spawn without ever going to sea; others migrate to sea at less than a year old. Although most spend two to six years at sea, some return to fresh water after spending less than a year in the ocean (McEwen 2001).

In California, peak spawning in most runs occurs from December through April. Steelhead generally spawn in small tributaries where cool, well-oxygenated water is available year-round. Like salmon, the female steelhead digs a nest, or ―redd,‖ deposits eggs while an attendant male fertilizes them, then covers the eggs with gravel. The length of time it takes for eggs to hatch largely depends on water temperature (McEwen 2001).

The newly emerged fry move to shallow, protected areas associated with stream margins where they establish feeding stations that they defend. Juveniles mainly inhabit riffles, but they can utilize a variety of other habitat types. Relatively high fingerling densities occur in association with structural complexity, such as that provided by large woody debris. Juveniles also exhibit a preference for sites with overhead cover and appear to select positions in streams in response to low light levels (McEwen 2001).

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-34 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Within the BSA, Pilarcitos Creek is designated critical habitat for central California coastal ESU steelhead (USFWS 2011a, 2011b).

Amphibians

California Red-Legged Frog

The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is listed as federally threatened and is a species of special concern in California (CDFG 2011a). Red-legged frogs were formerly widely distributed on the floor of the Central Valley and in coastal ponds and streams. Their decline has been linked to the introduction of the bullfrog, non-native fishes, cattle grazing, and other factors. Suitable habitat includes permanent, slow-moving watercourses or ponds with overhanging or emergent vegetation. This frog is generally found in or near water, but disperses after rains and may appear in damp woods and meadows far from water (Stebbins 2003).

The diet of California red-legged frogs is highly variable. The foraging ecology of larvae has not been studied, but they are thought to be algal grazers. Invertebrates are the most common food items of adult frogs. Vertebrates, such as Pacific tree frogs (Hyla regilla) and California mice (Peromyscus californicus), represented over half of the prey mass eaten by larger frogs, although invertebrates were the most numerous food items. Feeding typically occurs along the shoreline and on the surface of the water; juveniles appear to forage during both daytime and nighttime, whereas subadults and adults appear to feed at night. Radiotracking studies suggest that frogs also forage several meters into dense riparian areas (USFWS 2002).

There are two previously recorded occurrences of this species within one-mile of the BSA, and thirteen previously recorded occurrences within five miles of the BSA (CDFG 2011a). Critical habitat has been designated for this species less than one mile to the east of the BSA (USFWS 2011b). Within the BSA, suitable habitat for this frog is present in the riparian corridor, and in the annual grassland adjacent to the riparian corridor.

Reptiles

San Francisco Garter Snake

The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) is a subspecies of the common garter snake that is endemic to the San Francisco peninsula. The snake is listed as endangered under both the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. There are two previously recorded occurrences of this snake within 1 mile of the BSA and fifteen previously recorded occurrences of this species within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFG 2011a).

This snake species is wary and flees when approached. They are most commonly found in riparian habitats and ponds, and tend to retreat to water when approached. This species is infrequently found in upland habitats away from streams and ponds. Principle prey items of this snake include California red-legged frogs and other amphibians (USFWS 1985; Stebbins 2003).

The San Francisco garter snake is characterized by a wide, greenish-yellow dorsal stripe bordered by broad black and red stripes, with a greenish-blue belly. This snake is considered one of the most beautiful serpents in North America and is threatened by collection by reptile hobbyists (USFWS 1985; Stebbins 2003).

Within the BSA, suitable habitat for the San Francisco garter snake is present in the riparian corridor and in the annual grassland adjacent to the riparian corridor.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-35 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Birds

San Francisco Common Yellowthroat

The San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) is considered a California species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game and is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This small warbler feeds almost entirely on insects, and, in San Mateo County, nests and forages within coastal riparian and wetland areas (Gardali and Evens 2008). There are two previously recorded occurrences of this species within 1 mile of the BSA and four previously recorded occurrences within 5 miles of the BSA (CDFG 2011a). The Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor contains suitable habitat for this species.

Raptors and Other Migratory Birds

Raptor nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Suitable raptor and other migratory bird nesting habitat occurs in the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor within the BSA. Additionally, the annual grassland component of the BSA is suitable raptor foraging habitat.

Migratory birds forage and nest in multiple habitats such as those found within the BSA. The nests of all migratory birds are protected under the MBTA, which makes it illegal to destroy any active migratory bird nest. Numerous migratory bird species have the potential to nest in the riparian corridor portion of the BSA.

Mammals

San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat

The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) is a California Species of Special Concern. Habitat for this species includes riparian woodlands with moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory (CDFG 2011a). One previously recorded occurrence of this species is within 5 miles of the BSA, in riparian woodland with the same vegetative composition (arroyo willow and Himalayan blackberry) as the riparian corridor within the BSA (CDFG 2011a). This species eats plant foliage as well as fruit, seeds, acorns, and fungi, and constructs large houses, about 3 feet high and 3 to 7 feet wide, usually placed on the ground around the trunks of trees or in dense brush. This species breeds in spring or summer and usually has a single litter of one to four young per year (Reid 2006). If present within the BSA, this species is probably confined to the riparian corridor due to the fact that it is a habitat specialist typically found in areas with heavy, dense undergrowth.

Sensitive Habitats

For the purposes of this BRA, sensitive habitats are defined as:

Areas of special concern to federal, state, and local resource agencies;

Areas protected under CEQA;

Areas designated as sensitive natural communities by CDFG;

Areas outlined in Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code;

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-36 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Areas regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; and

Areas protected under local regulations and policies.

The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search identified seven special-status habitats occurring in the US Geological Survey quadrangles surrounding the BSA. These habitats include N. Central Coast Calif. Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead Stream; North Central Coast Steelhead/Sculpin; North Coastal Salt Marsh; Northern Maritime Chaparral; Sacramento-San Joaquin Coastal Lagoon; Serpentine Bunchgrass; and Valley Needlegrass Grassland (CDFG 2011a). Only the N. Central Coast Calif. Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead Stream and North Central Coast Steelhead/Sculpin habitats are present within the BSA. They are discussed as critical habitat for the federally listed central California coast ESU steelhead below. The other special- status habitat types identified by the CNDDB search do not occur within the BSA.

Pilarcitos Creek Riparian Corridor

The riparian area and corridor of Pilarcitos Creek, as well as the riparian buffer zone extending 50 feet outward from the limit of riparian vegetation, are protected as sensitive habitats by the City‘s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Coastal Resource Conservation Standards (Municipal Code Chapter 18.38).

Critical Habitat

The waters of Pilarcitos Creek are designated as critical habitat for central California coastal ESU steelhead (USFWS 2011a, 2011b). The USFWS defines critical habitat as a specific area that is essential for the conservation of a federally listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection.

Protected Trees

The City protects trees designated as ―heritage trees‖ pursuant to its Tree Protection Ordinance (City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 12.16). While the proposed project may require the removal of several Monterey cypresses on the southern border of the project footprint, these trees do not appear to meet the City‘s Tree Protection Ordinance criteria for heritage tree designation (City Code Section 12.16.030(B)).

A single Monterey pine, which is a considered to be a unique species under the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (City of Half Moon Bay 1993) and Coastal Resource Conservation Standards (Municipal Code Section 18.38.090), was noted within the BSA. Monterey pines are perennial evergreen trees in the Pinaceae family. Their habitat includes closed-cone coniferous forest and cismontane woodland. The Monterey pine is threatened by development, genetic contamination, pine pitch canker disease, and forest fragmentation. The project will not involve any construction within the dripline of the single tree found in the BSA.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-37 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Federal Endangered Species Act

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

California Endangered Species Act

Native Plant Protection Act

California Fish and Game Code

LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (1993)

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 18.38

Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 12.16 of the City's Municipal Code)

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated

Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species

Based on the database search and habitat suitability within the BSA for special-status plants, fragrant fritillary (CNPS List 1B.2) has the potential to occur within the annual grassland portion of the BSA (Figure 4.4-4). This species blooms between February and April (CNPS 2011).

Fragrant fritillary has the potential to occur within the BSA and be directly impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project could result in direct loss of this special-status plant species, if it is present. In addition to direct impacts, indirect impacts to this special-status plant species could occur through the degradation of its habitat by the introduction of non-native species.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-38 Legend

Biological Study Area Plan Area 50 foot Riparian Buffer Temporary Construction Zone Impact Permanent Road Impact Developable Residential Area Vegetative Communities Annual Grassland Cypress Hedge Open Water/Riverine Riparian Urban

100 0 100 Figure 4.4-4 ´ Impacts to Vegetative Communities within the Biological Study Area FEET

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.4a-1a Prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities, focused surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence of fragrant fritillary, which has the potential to occur in the BSA. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFG Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (CDFG 2000). These guidelines require rare plant surveys to be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both ―evident‖ and identifiable. Field surveys shall be scheduled to coincide with known blooming periods and/or during periods of physiological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. With regard to this species, the rare plant surveys should be conducted between February and April to identify the plant during its blooming period. If no fragrant fritillary is found within the project footprint, then the project will not have any impacts to the species and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

MM 4.4a-1b If fragrant fritillary is present within the BSA, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be implemented to educate construction workers about the presence of special-status species or other sensitive resources in and near the BSA, and to instruct them on proper avoidance, required measures and practices for protecting biological resources, and contacts and procedures in case species are injured or encountered during construction.

MM 4.4a-1c If fragrant fritillary is found on-site and cannot be avoided, the City shall consult with the USFWS and/or the CDFG, as applicable, to determine appropriate avoidance and mitigation for special-status plants, which may include, but are not limited to the following.

Efforts should be made to salvage portions of the habitat or plant populations that will be lost as a result of implementation of the proposed project.

Transplant the plants that would be adversely affected by the proposed project for either re-establishment after construction is complete or for planting in a new area of the riparian corridor in appropriate habitat.

A propagation program should be developed for the salvage and transfer of rare, threatened, or endangered plant populations from the project site before the initiation of construction activities. Permits may be required from the CDFG or the USFWS, which will ensure that certified biologists are involved in the propagation and transport of rare, threatened, or endangered plant species. (Note: Propagation methods for the salvaged plant population must be developed on a case-by-case basis and must include the involvement of local conservation easements/preserves/open space, where applicable). The propagation and transfer of individual plant species must be performed at the correct time of year and successfully completed

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-41 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

before the project‘s construction activities eliminate or disturb the plants and habitats of concern.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction activities

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to fragrant fritillary, a special-status plant species, to a less than significant level.

Impacts to Special-Status Fish Species

Project implementation could result in indirect impacts to the tidewater goby and central California coastal ESU steelhead, both of which are special-status fish species. These impacts are potentially significant.

While the proposed project will not directly impact special-status fish species, the project could cause indirect impacts to special-status fish species within the waters of Pilarcitos Creek. Project construction will increase the impervious surface area within the BSA, which could increase the volume and pollutant load of surface runoff water reaching Pilarcitos Creek. This could, in turn, cause physical stress to special-status fish species with that creek, a potentially significant impact to those species.

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce indirect impacts to the special-status fish species within the portion of Pilarcitos Creek inside the BSA, as well as downstream from the BSA:

MM 4.4a-2a All future development on the project site shall comply with the relevant City municipal ordinances and design standards, including the City‘s Coastal Resource Conservation Standards.

MM 4.4a-2b All future development on the project site shall be sited outside of the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor and its riparian buffer zone.

MM 4.4a-2c All future development on the project site shall comply with the applicable San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2009) and San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program new development performance standards (SMCWPPP 2003), including low impact development (LID) techniques, to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and to prevent increases in runoff flows from new development projects.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Working in conjunction, these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts to special- status fish species to a less than significant level by preventing the volume and pollutant load of runoff reaching the waters of Pilarcitos Creek from increasing beyond baseline levels.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-42 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Impacts to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds, including the San Francisco Common Yellowthroat

Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds, including the San Francisco common yellowthroat, including direct mortality, loss of active nests, disturbance during nesting activities, and stress caused by loss of foraging habitat. There would be a potentially significant impact.

Trees and vegetation in and around the BSA and the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor may provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected under the MBTA, including the San Francisco common yellowthroat, including the windrow of Monterey cypress.

In addition, although no riparian corridor vegetation is expected to be removed during project buildout, indirect impacts to raptor and other migratory bird species may occur if these species are nesting in the vicinity of the BSA. Project construction could result in noise, dust, light, increased human activity, and other indirect impacts to nesting raptors or migratory bird species in the project vicinity. These indirect impacts could cause nest abandonment, mortality to eggs and chicks, and stress from loss of foraging habitat.

Because the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor contains bird nesting habitat, project construction could result in the above-described disturbances to nesting raptors and other migratory birds, including species considered unique under the City‘s Coastal Resource Conservation Standards (Municipal Code Section 18.038.090). Raptors and other migratory birds are also protected under the MBTA and Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code; therefore, these potential impacts are considered potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.4a-3a If construction activities occur within the nesting season (typically February 1 to August 30), then preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors and migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist up to two weeks prior to the start of construction activities, including vegetation clearing. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250-foot radius surrounding the construction zone in suitable habitat, where feasible, to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds.

MM 4.4a-3b If an active raptor nest is located within a 250-foot radius around the construction zone, including staging areas, or if an active migratory bird nest is located within a 50-foot radius and construction must take place during the breeding season, a buffer zone shall be established by a qualified biologist and confirmed by the appropriate resource agency. A qualified wildlife biologist shall monitor the nest to determine when the young have fledged and submit monthly monitoring reports to the City Planning Department throughout the nesting season on the status of the nest. The biological monitor shall have the authority to cease construction if there is any sign of distress to the raptor or migratory bird. Reference to this requirement and the MBTA shall be included in the construction specifications.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-43 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to nesting raptors and migratory birds to a less than significant level.

Impacts to Foraging Raptors and Migratory Birds

Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to foraging raptors and migratory birds due to a loss of foraging habitat. Due to an abundance of foraging habitat elsewhere in the project vicinity, this is a less than significant impact.

Project construction will result in the permanent conversion of up to 0.8 acres of annual grassland into urban habitat. As annual grassland supports a variety of insect, reptile, and mammal species that are important food sources for raptors and migratory birds (Kie 2005), the loss of this foraging habitat is an adverse impact to raptors and migratory birds. Due to an abundance of annual grassland foraging habitat elsewhere in the project vicinity, however, the impact caused by the loss of 0.8 acres of annual grassland within the BSA does not rise to the level of significance. Consequently, this impact is less than significant.

Impacts to California Red-Legged Frog

Implementation of the project could result in adverse impacts to California red-legged frogs, including direct mortality, within the annual grassland habitat portions of the project site. This is a potentially significant impact.

Based on the database search and habitat suitability within the BSA for special-status species, California red-legged frog has the potential to occur within the riparian corridor, annual grassland, and urban portions of the BSA. While no project construction will take place within the riparian corridor, project construction within the annual grassland and urban portions of the BSA could result in the direct loss of this special-status species, if it is present.

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to the California red- legged frog:

MM 4.4a-5 A USFWS-approved biologist will survey the project site two weeks before the onset of work activities. If any life stage of the California red-legged frog is detected, construction activities shall not be allowed to commence until the USFWS and the City reach an appropriate level of consultation.

During project construction activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from the work area.

All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 60 feet from riparian habitat or water bodies and not in a location from where a spill would drain directly toward aquatic habitat. The monitor will ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-44 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Prior to the onset of work, the City will ensure that the contractor‘s stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) includes provisions for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the City will implement best management practices (BMPs) outlined in any authorizations or permits, issued under the authorities of the Clean Water Act that it receives for the specific project. If BMPs are ineffective, the City will attempt to remedy the situation immediately.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to California red-legged frogs to a less than significant level.

Impacts to San Francisco Garter Snake

Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to the San Francisco garter snake, including direct mortality, within the annual grassland and urban vegetative community portions of the project footprint. This is a potentially significant impact.

Based on the database search and habitat suitability within the BSA for special-status species, San Francisco garter snake has the potential to occur within the riparian corridor, annual grassland, and urban vegetation community portions of the BSA. While no project construction will take place within the riparian corridor, project construction within the annual grassland and urban portions of the BSA could result in direct loss of this special-status species, if it is present.

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to the San Francisco garter snake:

MM 4.4a-6 A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the construction footprint immediately before the onset of activities. Any San Francisco garter snakes shall be allowed to leave the work area of their own accord and shall be monitored as practical by the biologist to ensure they do not reenter the construction footprint.

During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work area.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-45 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Prior to the onset of work, the City will ensure that the contractor‘s SWPPP includes provisions for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the City will implement best management practices outlined in any authorizations or permits, issued under the authorities of the Clean Water Act that it receives for the specific project. If best management practices are ineffective, the City will attempt to remedy the situation immediately.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activities

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to the San Francisco garter snake to a less than significant level.

Impacts to San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat

Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat due to increased human disturbances within the riparian corridor. This is a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4.a-2a, MM 4.4.a-2b, and MM 4.4.a-2c would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

The above-described mitigation measures will require the project to site all construction outside of the Pilarcitos Creek riparian buffer zone. This will reduce the level of human disturbances within the dense riparian vegetation where the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat may be present. These mitigation measures will reduce impacts to the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat to a less than significant level. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project could result in the disturbance and degradation of the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor, which is a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or the USFWS. This is a potentially significant impact.

Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under CEQA. Riparian habitats, including the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor, are considered to be a sensitive natural community under CEQA. The Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor is also protected by the City‘s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Coastal Resource Conservation Standards.

While the project will not involve direct impacts to the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor, the project may result in indirect impacts to this sensitive natural community both during and after project construction. Indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities occur for a number of reasons, primarily through increased human/wildlife interactions, habitat fragmentation, encroachment by exotic weeds, and area-wide changes in surface water flows due to development of previously undeveloped areas.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-46 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

As an example of indirect impacts that may affect the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor, the construction and operation of the proposed project could disturb the surrounding habitat through an increase in noise and vibrations, which may negatively impact or drive away wildlife species surrounding the project site. The project would increase the vehicular traffic on Church Street due to the increased population density at the project site, increasing the amount and severity of indirect impacts to wildlife and habitat within and surrounding the project site. The increase in vehicular traffic would also increase noise and dust in the vicinity of the proposed project that may have an indirect impact on special-status species if they are present within the surrounding habitat.

Additionally, outdoor lighting can influence the life cycle and behavior of animals in many ways. In particular for birds, insects, and amphibians, it has been observed that outdoor lighting influences behavior as animals are disoriented, attracted, or repelled by the light, thus increasing the chance of exhaustion and death. Light pollution can confuse animal navigation, alter competitive interactions, change predator-prey relations, and influence animal physiology. For some species with small, isolated populations, this can cause local extinction.

Project construction and continued ground disturbance from vehicular and pedestrian traffic could degrade the quality of the habitat and allow the introduction and spread of invasive exotic species. These species can spread to natural areas, causing native plant life to be replaced by exotic species. Initial construction activities, grading, and other ground- or vegetation-clearing disturbances can eliminate native plant population and allow invasive non-native species to become established. As native plants are replaced by exotic species, indirect impacts to the habitat of listed species would occur such as modification or degradation of habitat.

The project would involve an increase in impermeable surfaces and an increase in landscaped area (which may also include increased runoff and fertilizer/herbicide use). Surface water flows normally increase due to an increase in impermeable surfaces through, for example, the placement of building materials and paving over of permeable surfaces. Some cover types that contain habitat for listed species can be indirectly impacted by such changes.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4a-2a, MM 4.4a-2b, and MM 4.4a-2c would reduce these potentially significant impacts to riparian and other sensitive communities within the BSA to a less than significant level. c) No Impact. The project will cause no impact to any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As described above under b), project construction could cause potentially significant disturbances to the migratory corridor habitat value of the Pilarcitos Creek riparian corridor, as well as to the waters of Pilarcitos Creek itself. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4a-2a, MM 4.4a-2b, and MM 4.4a-2c would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. e) No Impact. The project has been designed to avoid any conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City of Half Moon Bay Local

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-47 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Coastal Program (1993), Municipal Code, and Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 12.16 of the City‘s Municipal Code). Consequently, there is no impact due to conflicts. f) No Impact. There are no adopted or approved habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved conservation plans applicable to the proposed project. As a result, there is no impact.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-48 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

SETTING

This section is based on the Cultural Resources Evaluation of the project site conducted by Archaeological Resource Service (ARS) in September 2011 (Appendix C).

HISTORIC SETTING

The first account of Europeans in the Half Moon Bay area was the expedition of Gaspar de Portola who, with a party of soldiers, engineers, and friars, set camp in Half Moon Bay for the night. Their campsite was along Pilarcitos Creek and is now California Historical Landmark Number 21.

Spanish settlement of the region began in about 1776 with the establishment of Mission Dolores in San Francisco and its outpost, the Sanchez Adobe in Pacifica, under the direction of Father Junipero Serra. By the early 1800s, all of the Native Americans residing near Half Moon Bay had been missionized and most were taken to Sanchez Adobe where they were converted into Christians and used for labor. Due to its natural enclosure created by the ocean on the west and the high Santa Cruz Mountain Range to the east, the Spanish missionaries used the area of Half Moon Bay to keep cattle, horses, and sheep and the area became the center of a large ranching operation.

Following the secularization of the missions by the newly established Mexican government, large plots of lands were given to Mexican citizens. Tiburcio Vasquez received the Rancho Corral de Tierra in 1839 that included lands north of Pilarcitos Creek. Tiburcio Vasquez built an adobe on the north side of Pilarcitos Creek and was respected as the patriarch of his family and the village that became known as San Benito.

The Rancho Miramontes, which included 4,424 acres of land south of Pilarcitos Creek, was granted to Juan Jose Candelario Miramontes in 1841. Rancho Miramontes was also known as Rancho San Benito and Arroy de los Pilarcitos, which means ―creek of little pillars.‖ Candelario Miramontes (1789–1846) came to Monterey and was a military officer at the Presidio of San Francisco. He married Maria Guadalupe Briones (1793–1895) in 1808. They resided in San

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-49 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Francisco and grew corn, peas, and potatoes, but sometime before the Mexican-American War broke out in 1846, Miramontes moved his family from San Francisco to San Benito. It was there that Miramontes built a large two-bedroom adobe near present-day Mill Street east of Main Street.

When Mexico seceded California to the United States in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided that Mexican land grants be honored. The Public Lands Commission was established by the Land Act of 1851 to review the legitimacy of the various land grants and issue patents, or land titles. In the case of Rancho Miramontes, it was patented to Juan Jose Candelario Miramontes in 1882 even though he had died by this time.

By 1849 San Benito had a population of about 70, including missionized Indians. When American settlers began to arrive in the area of San Benito around 1853 they dubbed the place ―Spanishtown,‖ due to its high population of Spanish-speaking families. Spanishtown was considered one of the best agricultural regions in San Mateo County and had a growing fishing industry. Some of the early American settlers of the area included G. R. Borden, B. F. Webb, and Armstead Goadley, who came in 1853, followed by the Johnston brothers.

James Johnston (1813–1879) came from Ohio and after making money in the gold fields, returned to San Francisco and acquired an interest in a saloon and began speculating in real estate. Johnston married Petra de Jara in 1852. In 1853, Johnston purchased 1,162 acres of Rancho Miramontes from the heirs of Candelario Miramontes. James invited his brothers, John, Thomas, and William, to settle on the San Mateo coast. The Johnston brothers continued to make additional purchases, and by 1859, the Johnston Ranch comprised about half of the original 4,424-acre Rancho Miramontes.

In the 1860s, Spanishtown grew significantly and became racially diverse. Over the next decade the town added a harness maker who was also justice of the peace, a doctor, a blacksmith, a plow manufactory, a grist mill, a post office, merchants, two churches, a school, a department store, and other businesses. A house of entertainment was also established by Henry Bidwell, nephew of General John Bidwell, who was also postmaster. There was a regular stagecoach service as well. By the 1870s, the town facilitated a population of five or six hundred people. In 1874, Spanishtown was renamed to Half Moon Bay by the newly arriving American settlers. Many of the early buildings constructed during this early American period are still present.

The project site was located on the northwest side of town. The Sanborn map from 1905 shows Church Street, then called Ocean Street, as a dead-end street terminating at the subject parcel and the map reads ―not opened,‖ indicating it was a planned street but not yet developed. A dwelling and two outbuildings are shown on the west side of the street, but it is unclear if any of them would have extended into the project site. The 1908 Santa Cruz quadrangle map also indicates a building being present there, as well as an additional building near the west side of the project site. According to the Sanborn map from 1932, the buildings to the south were still present at that time.

The US Geological Survey (USGS) 15-foot Half Moon Bay quadrangle maps from 1940 and 1943 show the presence of a structure near the southeast corner, which is presumably the one indicated on the Sanborn maps, and another structure near the west end of the project site. By 1961, the current Highway 1 through Half Moon Bay had been constructed and the structure that was formerly located near the west end of the project site had been removed, probably due to highway construction. The structure at the southeast end of the project site is still shown. According to the update of the 7.5-foot USGS Half Moon Bay quadrangle, the house was still present in 1973.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-50 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Currently, there are no buildings located within the project site.

NATIVE AMERICAN SETTING

At the time of Euro-American contact, the Native Americans that lived in the vicinity of the project site included speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan language family. Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word costa and means ―coast people‖ and actually refers to a language family, not a united group. Costanoan territory extended from the southern shore of the Carquinez Strait to Big Sur and from the Pacific Coast inland for 20 to 30 miles. According to linguistic data, the ancestors of the Costanoans moved into the area around 4,500 years ago. However the archaeological record has provided dates of occupation as great as 9,960 +/- 500 years before present from a site near Coyote Creek in the southern Santa Clara Valley.

The Costanoan language family was made up of eight distinctly different languages, the Ramaytush being one of them, spoken by some 50 separate tribelets, each with a population of approximately 200 people. The tribelet was the basic inter-village organization of central California. Separate dialects were spoken by each tribelet; each tribelet was politically separate and had its own permanent villages and seasonal camps for hunting and fishing. Today the descendants of these tribelets are referred to collectively as the Ohlone. There does not appear to have been any village sites in the vicinity of the project site which were reported to early ethnographers. The closest site is reported to have been located west of Highway 1 and on the south side of Pilarcitos Creek. This may be the village site of Shatomnumo that was reported to be located along Pilarcitos Creek by early European settlers.

The general region includes a long stretch of the Pacific Ocean which drew birds, fish, and marine mammals and was abundant with shellfish, but acorns were one of the most important food sources to the Costanoans. Four separate species of acorns were gathered to be consumed as a mush or as acorn bread. Other seeds that were collected include buckeye seeds, which were processed into a mush, and Bay laurel seeds, which were consumed both cooked and raw. Dock, tarweed, chia, and Indian pine seeds were roasted before being eaten. Many varieties of berries were also acquired including blackberries, elderberries, strawberries, Manzanita berries, gooseberries, madrone berries, toyon berries, and wild grapes. Other edibles that were gathered included roots, young shoots, and common tule pollen. A historical account noted that the Costanoans enjoyed eating native tobacco mixed with shell lime. The Costanoans used controlled burning to promote seed bearing, control chaparral, and create larger grazing areas, which in turn created better hunting grounds. The burning would have also ripened the acorns for earlier harvest.

Animal bones typically found in Costanoan archaeological sites include black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk, antelope, mountain lion, grizzly bear, sea lion, whale, dog, wildcat, skunk, raccoon, brush rabbit, cottontail, jackrabbit, tree squirrel, ground squirrel, woodrat, mouse, mole, fish, and a variety of birds. Some species of insects also were eaten. Although most animals were hunted for food, some were valued for their bones, which could be modified into tools or decorative ornaments. For instance, whistles made from eagle, hawk, and condor wing and leg bones have been found, but it is thought that these birds were not killed for food. The Costanoans ate many species of shellfish such as mussels, abalone, clams, and oysters. They also used the shells of these mollusks for the manufacture of ornaments, such as beads and pendants.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-51 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Costanoan clothing included small tule or grass front aprons and buckskin rear aprons for women. Men did not usually wear clothing. However, both men and women wore skins and feather robes in colder weather. For personal decoration, ears were pierced and beads and feathers were worn. Both men and women tattooed their body and face and some men pierced their nasal septum.

For shelter, the Costanoans fashioned a shallow pit with a sunken floor and constructed a frame structure around it consisting of poles thatched with tule grass and ferns. Houses were also constructed out of redwood poles and redwood bark.

Native American Consultation

ARS requested that the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento review the Sacred Lands Inventory to determine if there are any sacred lands listed in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Sacred sites are places of special Native American religious or social significance. The NAHC has been given the authority (Public Resources Code 5097.9) to identify, catalogue, and protect these sites. No sacred sites were identified as being in the vicinity of the proposed project.

The NAHC recognizes that they are not aware of all Native American resources that are significant to tribes, and they recommended that other Native American organizations and individuals from the local area be contacted for further information. On September 1, 2011, ARS sent letters to the eight Native American individuals/organizations listed by the NAHC to notify them of the project and inquire about Native American resources in the vicinity. Irene Zwierlein, chairperson of the Amah/Mutsun Tribal Band, responded by e-mail stating that there was a shell deposit located on the other side of the creek from the current project site. The author responded thanking her for the information and invited her to be present during the field survey or to receive information about the results of the survey. There was no further response.

As of the date of this IS/MND, there has been no additional response from any of the other contact persons.

RESULTS OF THE FIELD SURVEY

As part of the cultural resources evaluation (ARS 2011), a field survey was conducted to inspect the ground surface for historic or prehistoric artifacts and other indications of former activity or habitation. The results of the field survey are discussed below.

Remnants of Former Buildings at Southeast Corner

There are sparse remnants of the former structures at the east end of the project site. The year in which the former buildings were constructed was not determined, but they were present prior to 1905 according to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from that year. Many of the wood fragments observed scattered around the surface had round nails, indicating twentieth century construction.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-52 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The Sanborn maps from 1905, 1911, and 1932 show a dwelling, a stable, and another type of structure in this area. The dwelling is shown as an L-shaped one-story structure with wood frame construction, a tile chimney, and a shingle roof. The land use on the 1905 map indicates residential (transient). The stable was north of the dwelling and was a square, two-story building of wood frame construction and a shingle roof. The third building was situated to the west and between the dwelling and the stable. It was a one-story tall rectangular structure with a stovepipe. The buildings were present until sometime after 1978.

The sparse remnants of the former house, stable, and other outbuilding are not a potentially significant cultural resource. It is not clear if the former structures were associated with events that have a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States (CRHR, Criterion 1); were associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history (CRHR, Criterion 2); or embodied the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represented the work of a master or possessed high artistic values (CRHR, Criterion 3). Nevertheless, they are no longer present, the remnants do not possess integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, or feeling, and there are no remaining characteristics that can convey significance. Consequently, it does not appear significant.

Historic Artifact Scatter

Seven ceramic fragments and a fragment of dark olive green ―black‖ glass from an old bottle were observed scattered within a 200-square-foot area. There was nothing diagnostic about the ceramics that could provide a reliable date, but in general they appear to be from the first half of the twentieth century. ―Black‖ bottle glass was used pre-1800 up to the 1880s for spirits, beer, porter, ale, and similar fermented beverages. In addition to the glass and ceramics, there were also small pieces of redwood and some palm tree stems. These items were not particularly concentrated in one location, but were spread around instead, and their presence is difficult to interpret.

The USGS topographic maps from 1940 and 1943 show a structure near the west end of the project site that appears to have been removed when the highway was constructed sometime between 1943 and 1961, according to the USGS 7.5-foot Half Moon Bay quadrangle maps from those years. The wide scatter of historic artifacts could be associated with a former structure, but this is inconclusive and far-reaching. This resource lacks association and can tell us nothing about the past and therefore is not considered a potentially significant historic resource.

Shell Fragments

Two shell fragments were observed just off the west end of the project site, in previously disturbed fill soil near a newly constructed house. While clamshell is often an indicator of there being a prehistoric site, no other shell or additional artifacts were observed. The shell fragments did not mark the presence of a prehistoric site or other type of potentially significant prehistoric resource, and they are not considered significant on their own.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

California Environmental Quality Act (14 CCR 15064.5, PRC 21083.2, and PRC 21084.1)

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-53 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (1993)

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 18.38

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a–c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No potentially significant cultural resources were identified during the cultural resources evaluation of the project site (ARS 2011). Some construction debris, a short segment of a 6-foot chain-link fence, and landscaping-type vegetation were observed from a previous house, stable, and outbuilding in the southeast portion of the project site, but the remaining debris and building pads are not considered a potentially significant historic resource. A sparse scatter of some ceramic fragments and a fragment of ―black‖ glass from an old spirit bottle were observed near the west-central portion of the project site, but were widely dispersed and did not appear to mark a discrete deposit. Two shell fragments were also found at the east end of the project site, but no other indications of a prehistoric resource were identified. The shell was observed in non-native soil within a disturbed context and consequently does not represent a potentially significant prehistoric resource.

However, there is the potential for subsurface domestic trash features to be present that are associated with the former residence. In addition, map research indicates there was a structure located near the west end of the project site, and if the ceramic fragments are associated with occupation of that structure, then they could indicate the presence of subsurface domestic trash features. Such resources could yield information important to the history of the local area, California, or the nation (CRHR, Criterion 4). Historic-type artifacts from previous occupation include fragments of window and bottle glass (including amethyst, aqua, green, brown, cobalt, and clear), wire and cut nails, ceramics, wood, metal items, and other debris. Historic features can include artifacts found in concentration and with distinct boundaries, foundations, wells, and similar structures.

There is also the potential for subsurface deposits of archaeological artifacts or other buried features to be present. Native American artifacts typically found in the area include obsidian and/or chert flakes and tools, ground stone items, and fire-affected rock. Culturally developed soil, called midden, is dark in color and contains food remains such as the shells of marine or terrestrial mollusks (from taxa such as various kinds of clams, mussels, oyster, abalone, or land snails), butchered animal and bird bone, fire-cracked rock, and organic materials like charcoal, ash, and plant fibers. Human remains may also be found in midden deposits.

While there is no evidence of any subsurface cultural resource deposits, there is the potential for subsurface resources to be unearthed during construction activities. If there are historic, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources located within the project site, the activities that would result in the greatest potential for impacts include grading and excavation. Any impact on these potential resources would be a potentially significant impact, but implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-54 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.5abc-1 If buried historic, archeological, and/or paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work would stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City and other appropriate agencies. Avoidance is preferable, but if a resource cannot be avoided then recovery of the feature using appropriate archaeological methods would be warranted.

Timing/Implementation: During construction

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department d) Less Than Significant Impact. No known human remains are present within the project site area; however, the potential always exists. Although the likelihood of encountering human skeletal remains in the project site seems low, it is important to have a procedure for alternate tasks that can be put into effect quickly in the event human remains are discovered. This allows construction work to continue while the remains are investigated. In the event of such a discovery, Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) specifies the following protocol:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (e), requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are those of Native Americans, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as timely identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. Section 15064.5 directs the lead agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains.

These existing regulations would ensure that impacts to previously undiscovered human remains or burial sites would be less than significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-55 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 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?

SETTING

Since the early 1990s, scientific consensus holds that the world‘s population is releasing greenhouse gases faster than the earth‘s natural systems can absorb them. These gases are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land-use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of greenhouse gases beyond natural levels. The overabundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has the potential to severely impact the earth‘s climate system. Some of the potential changes that could result from planetary climate change include substantial increases in sea level, increased drought and desertification, reductions in global agriculture and food supplies, impacts to existing ecosystems, and a possible re-initiation of an ice age if oceanic circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean is affected. In the future, California will probably be most affected by increasing sea levels, extended drought conditions, increased flooding, and more severe wildfires.

While often used interchangeably, there is a difference between the terms ―climate change‖ and ―global warming.‖ According to the National Academy of Sciences, climate change refers to any significant, measurable change of climate lasting for an extended period of time that can be caused by both natural factors and human activities. Global warming, on the other hand, is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions. The use of the term climate change is becoming more prevalent because it encompasses all changes to the climate, not just temperature.

To fully understand global climate change, it is important to recognize the naturally occurring ―greenhouse effect‖ and to define the greenhouse gases that contribute to this phenomenon. Various gases in the earth‘s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth‘s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth‘s atmosphere from space and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth‘s surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, absorb infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, CH4, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-56 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

For most nonindustrial development projects, motor vehicles are the primary source of GHG emissions produced on an operational basis. The primary greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (CARB 2004). Following are descriptions of the primary greenhouse gases attributed to global climate change, including a description of their physical properties, primary sources, and contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Carbon Dioxide

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest sources of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. A number of specialized industrial production processes such as mineral and metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. According to the EPA, the average atmospheric lifetime of CO2 can vary from 50 to 200 years (EPA 2011d) because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere (USEPA 2011a).

Methane

Methane (CH4) is a colorless, odorless gas that is not flammable under most circumstances. CH4 is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (enteric fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. Natural sources of methane include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non- wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. Methane‘s atmospheric lifetime is about 12 years (USEPA 2011b).

Nitrous Oxide

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. N2O is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, and production of adipic and nitric acid. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years (USEPA 2010a).

Hydrofluorocarbons

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made chemicals, many of which have been developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for industrial, commercial, and consumer products. The only significant emissions of HFCs before 1990 were of the chemical HFC-23, which is generated as a byproduct of the production of HCFC-22 (or Freon 22, used in air conditioning applications). The atmospheric lifetime for HFCs varies from just over a year for HFC-152a to 260 years for HFC-23. Most of the commercially used HFCs have atmospheric lifetimes less than 15 years (e.g., HFC-134a, which is used in automobile air conditioning and refrigeration, has an atmospheric life of 14 years) (USEPA 2010b).

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-57 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Perfluorocarbons

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are colorless, highly dense, chemically inert, and nontoxic. There are seven PFC gases: perfluoromethane (CF4), perfluoroethane (C2F6), perfluoropropane (C3F8), perfluorobutane (C4F10), perfluorocyclobutane (C4F8), perfluoropentane (C5F12), and perfluorohexane (C6F14). Natural geological emissions have been responsible for the PFCs that have accumulated in the atmosphere in the past; however, currently the largest source is aluminum production, which releases CF4 and C2F6 as by-products. The estimated atmospheric lifetimes for CF4 and C2F6 are 50,000 and 10,000 years, respectively (EFCTC 2003; USEPA 2010b).

Sulfur Hexafluoride

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic compound that is colorless, odorless, nontoxic, and generally nonflammable. SF6 is primarily used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment. The electric power industry uses roughly 80 percent of all SF6 produced worldwide. Significant leaks occur from aging equipment and during equipment maintenance and servicing. SF6 has an atmospheric life of 3,200 years (USEPA 2010b).

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Gases with high global warming potential (GWP), such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, are the most heat-absorbent. Methane (CH4) traps over 21 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its GWP. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Table 4.6-1 shows the GWPs for different GHGs for a 100-year time horizon.

TABLE 4.6-1 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL FOR GREENHOUSE GASES

Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1

Methane (CH4) 21

Nitrous Dioxide (N2O) 310 Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 6,500

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 23,900 Source: California Climate Action Registry 2009

As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively. California is significant emitter of CO2 in the world and produced 477 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2008 (CARB 2010b). Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California‘s GHG emissions in 2008, accounting for 36.4 percent of total GHG emissions in the state (CARB 2010b). This category was followed by the electric power sector (including both in-state and out-of-state sources) (24.3 percent) and the industrial sector (19.3 percent) (CARB 2010b).

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-58 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Beginning in 2002, California has enacted the following acts, executive orders, and administrative practices to address climate change and greenhouse gas emissions:

Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, codified at Health and Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5

Senate Bill (SB) 1771 – Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions: Climate Change, codified at Health and Safety Code Section 42800 et seq. and Public Resources Code Section 25730 et seq.

Executive Order S-3-05 (2005)

AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, codified at Health and Safety Code Sections 38500, 38501, 28510, 38530, 38550, 38560, 38561–38565, 38570, 38571, 38574, 38580, 38590, 38592–38599

SB 375, codified at Government Code Sections 65080, 65400, 65583, 65584.01, 65584.02, 65584.04, 65587, 65588, 14522.1, 14522.2, and 65080.01 as well as Public Resources Code Sections 21061.3, 21159.28, and Chapter 4.2

SB 1368, codified at Public Utilities Code Chapter 3

SB 1771, codified at Health and Safety Code Article 6 and Public Resources Code Chapter 8.5

SB 527, codified at Health and Safety Code Sections 42400.4, 42801, 42810, 42821–42824, 42840–42843, 42860, 42870, 43021, 42410, 42801.1, 43023

SB 1078, Public Utilities Code Sections 387, 390.1, 399.25 and Article 16

Executive Order S-13-08 (2008)

California Building Standards Code – Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, known as the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California‘s energy consumption

Climate Change Scoping Plan – In October of 2008, CARB published its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, which is the State‘s plan to achieve GHG reductions in California required by AB 3.

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated based on sources of CO2, N2O, and CH4. Calculations of GHG emissions typically focus on CO2 because it is the most commonly produced greenhouse gas in terms of number of sources and volume generated, and because it is among the easiest GHGs to measure. This analysis also assesses N2O and CH4 emissions for other

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-59 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

primary source categories of emissions (e.g., motor vehicles). It is important to note that while other GHGs, such as HFCs, have a higher global warming potential than CO2, they are emitted at negligible levels for similar projects under typical operations. Therefore, quantification of other GHG emissions was not included in this analysis.

URBEMIS 2007 was utilized to estimate the CO2 emissions associated with the construction and operational activities associated with the proposed project.1 N2O and CH4 emissions resulting from project construction and periodic renovation activities were analyzed using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1 (January 2009). The General Reporting Protocol, produced by the California Registry and developed with the recommendations and technical and policy guidance from the California Energy Commission, is a document designed to support the accurate reporting of GHG emissions in a quantifiable manner.

Construction Emissions

The BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction- related GHG emissions. However, the BAAQMD recommends quantification and disclosure of GHG emissions that would occur during construction. As shown in Table 4.6-2, the construction of the proposed project would result in a maximum of 2,370 pounds per day of construction-generated CO2e.

TABLE 4.6-2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)

Carbon Nitrous Hydrofluoro- Perfluoro- Sulfur Methane Construction Phase Dioxide Oxide carbons carbons Hexafluoride CO2e (CH4) (CO2) (N2O) (HFCs) (PFCs) (SF6) Project Construction 2,349 0.1 0.1 N/A N/A N/A 2,370

Notes: N/A –Emissions of this GHG would be negligible from this source category. Emissions modeled by PMC using URBEMIS 2007 v. 9.2.4 and California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1 (January 2009). See Appendix D for modeling outputs.

Table 4.6-3 depicts the annual GHG emission contribution of each of these construction phases in metric tons based on the projected number of days estimated to construct each phase.

TABLE 4.6-3 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS PER YEAR)

Project Phase Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) Project Construction 91

Source: URBEMIS 2007v.9.2.4; California Climate Action Registry 2009

1Urbemis is software that uses the URBEMIS land use emissions inventory model to estimate greenhouse gas and criteria pollutant emissions under particular scenarios involving construction, area, and other sources. It has been designed specifically for California, though a 49 states version is in development, and uses California-specific road and construction emissions factors. The URBEMIS 2007 model uses the California Air Resources Board's EMFAC2007 model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model for off-road vehicle emissions.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-60 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

In addition to the BAAQMD‘s recommendation of construction-generated GHG emission quantification, the BAAQMD recommends that all construction projects incorporate best management practices. To ensure that best management practices are incorporated into the project, the following mitigation measure has been provided.

Mitigation Measure

MM 4.6a-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall specify on the final project plans implementation of BAAQMD-recommended construction-related measures to reduce GHG emissions during construction activities. The proposed project shall also implement the following measures or identify alternative measures to reduce construction-related GHG emissions, as feasible:

1. Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment to the maximum extent possible;

2. Use of local construction materials (within 100 miles) to the maximum extent possible; and

3. Recycle construction waste and demolition materials to the maximum extent possible.

Timing/Implementation: During construction

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department

Mitigation measure MM 4.6a-1 would further reduce the incremental emissions from project construction. Additionally, mitigation measure MM 4.3d-1, described under Subsection 4.3, Air Quality, would further reduce the emissions of heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment emissions during construction.

Operational Emissions

For GHG emissions resulting from operations of land use development projects, the BAAQMD threshold of significance is either compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/year) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e); or 4.6 MT CO2e/service population/year (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses and facilities. For the purposes of this analysis, 1,100 MT/year of CO2e is the chosen threshold of significance as the City of Half Moon Bay has not yet adopted a GHG reduction strategy. While the proposed project consists of both residential and commercial land uses, the specific commercial uses are not known at this time of this analysis and therefore the accurate number of future employees cannot be determined.

Operational GHG emissions were quantified for proposed project conditions using the URBEMIS 2007, version 9.2.4, computer program and the BAAQMD‘s Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM). Estimated GHG emissions were converted to CO2 equivalents based on the global warming potential of individual pollutants, expressed in metric tons per year (MTCO2e). The projected annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are summarized in Table 4.6-4.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-61 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

TABLE 4.6-4 OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES (METRIC TONS PER YEAR)

Emission Type CO2e Area Source 11 Mobile Source 396 Indirect Emissions from Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption 123 Water/Wastewater 4 Waste Generation 37 Total 571 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds (MT/year) 1,100 Emissions modeled by PMC using URBEMIS 2007 v. 9.2.4 and BAAQMD BGM Greenhouse Gas Calculator v. 1.1.9 (see Appendix D).

As shown in Table 4.6-4, the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for operational GHG emissions.

For the reasons described above, the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a less than significant impact on the environment. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Half Moon Bay is subject to compliance with the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). As identified in Table 4.6-4, the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD‘s significance thresholds for GHG emissions, which were established with the purpose of complying with the requirements of AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with AB 32. The City of Half Moon Bay has policies with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. For instance, Chapter 13.05 of the City Municipal Code requires that all new construction and applicable remodels will have, at a minimum, fixtures that comply with City-established efficiency standards. One of the primary goals of this provision is to encourage the conservation of water resources, which also has the effect of reducing GHG emissions as less energy is needed to convey water. The proposed project would be required to adhere to Chapter 13.05 of the City Municipal Code as well as all to other applicable City regulations.

The proposed project would not be considered to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This impact is less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-62 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated 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? 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? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would became 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 risks to life or property? e) 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?

SETTING

This section is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared for the project in November 2011 by Acacia CE (Appendix E).

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

California‘s geomorphic provinces are naturally defined geologic regions that display distinct landforms. Eleven geomorphic provinces are recognized in California. Each region displays unique, defining features based on geology, faults, topographic relief, and climate. The project site is located along the western edge of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized by northwest-trending valleys and ridges located between the Great Valley geomorphic province and the Pacific Ocean. The valleys and ridges are the result of a series of folds and faults caused by the collision of adjacent tectonic plates and subsequent strike-slip faulting along the San Andreas fault zone.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-63 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The project site and surrounding area is situated on a structural block bounded by the San Andreas fault zone (historically active) on the east and the Seal Cove segment of the San Gregorio fault zone (Holocene) to the west.

PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY

As shown on a portion of the regional geologic map by Brabb, Graymer, and Jones (USGS Report OF98-137), the immediate vicinity of the project site is composed of Quaternary aged sediment. Typically, soil in the project area was deposited in both marine and non-marine environments as sea levels have varied and the structural block has been lifted by adjacent fault activity. Based on the regional geologic map, it is inferred that near surface soil on the project site includes marine terrace deposits (Qmt, Pleistocene) generally composed of poorly consolidated sand and gravel deposited in shallow water on wave cut marine terraces that are now elevated above sea level. The marine terrace deposits at the project site are overlain by younger alluvial fan deposits (Qyfo, Holocene) associated with the Pilarcitos Creek drainage. Generally the surficial younger alluvial fan soil is composed of unconsolidated deposits of fine sand, silt, and clayey silt.

SEISMICITY AND FAULTING

The project site is located in a seismically active region of California, and active earthquake faults have been recognized in the vicinity of the site. Seismic hazards can include ground motion, ground surface fault rupture, liquefaction, seismic settlement, lateral spreading, and seismically induced slope instabilities. Seismic hazards at the project site may include the potential for strong ground motion (shaking), seismic settlement and liquefaction including associated lateral spreading, and sand boils. Earthquake Fault Zones, formerly known as Special Studies Zones, have been established along active known faults in California in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act passed in 1972. The California Geological Survey (CGS) has developed criteria to describe fault activity as required by Alquist-Priolo. By CGS definition:

An active fault is one that has had surface displacement within the Holocene epoch (about the last 11,700 years).

A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement during the Quaternary period (the last 1.6 million years).

Inactive faults are faults that have not had any movement in the last 1.6 million years (Quaternary period).

The numerous faults in the region include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The project site is near the San Andreas fault system, which is the principal tectonic element of the North American and Pacific plate boundary in California. Movements along this plate boundary in the Northern California region are primarily translational, resulting in mostly right lateral strike- slip faulting. Seismic and aseismic slip on the San Andreas fault system is partitioned into subsidiary structures that distribute plate movements across the Coast Ranges province, between the off-shore Continental Shelf areas to the west and the Sacramento Valley to the east. Many large historical earthquakes have occurred on active faults associated with the regional stress field of the San Andreas fault zone. Since 1800, the following four major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas fault in the greater San Francisco Bay and Monterey Bay areas.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-64 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. In 1836, an earthquake occurred east of Monterey Bay on the San Andreas fault. The earthquake had an estimated maximum intensity of VII on the Modified Mercalli (MM) scale and an estimated Maximum Moment Magnitude (Mw) of 6.25.

2. In 1838, an earthquake occurred on the San Francisco peninsula section of the San Andreas fault with an estimated MM intensity of about VIII–IX, corresponding to an Mw of about 7.5.

3. In 1906, the Great San Francisco earthquake had a maximum MM intensity of XI and a Mw of about 7.9.

4. In 1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake occurred in the Santa Cruz Mountains east of the project site with a Mw of 6.9.

In 1999, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) at the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) predicted a 70 percent probability of a Mw of 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area by the year 2030. The WGCEP revised their estimate in 2003 to a 62 percent probability of a Mw of 6.7 or greater earthquake during the period of 2003 to 2032. WGCEP 2007 was commissioned to develop an updated, statewide forecast, the latest result of which is the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF), Version 2.6. The comprehensive new forecast builds on previous studies and also incorporates abundant new data and improved scientific understanding of earthquakes. The WGCEP 2007 estimate predicts a 63 percent probability of a Mw of 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the San Francisco Bay Area by the year 2037. Therefore, the potential for the project site to experience significant ground motion and other earthquake-related phenomena is high.

SOIL

General soil conditions on the project site were obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS website includes a feature that will prepare a site-specific custom soil resource report. The general location (longitude and latitude) of the proposed project was used to generate a report for the property. The custom soil resource report is included in Appendix E as Attachment A. Based on the NRCS report, the project site is in an area that is mapped as NOTCOM (not complete). However, based on the regional geology as stated above, it is concluded that the soil series mapped near the project site are a strong indicator of the probable soil types that will occur on the project site. Nearby mapped soil series include the following:

Botella Series – clay loam

Denison Series – clay loam, coarse sandy loam, and loam

Farallone Series – loam and coarse sandy loam

Tierra Series – clay loam and loam

Generally, soils in these series are moderately well drained to well drained (permeable) and are non-plastic to low plasticity in nature (very low to moderate expansion potential). In addition, based on the relatively level site, the potential for landslides is very low.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-65 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act

California Building Standards Code (CBSC)

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) i) No Impact. There are no active faults within the City of Half Moon Bay, including the project site (City of Half Moon Bay 2011, p. 5). Furthermore, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone (CGS 2011). Therefore, no impact related to fault rupture will occur.

ii) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. As discussed under i) above, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. However, the project site is located in a seismically active region of California and active earthquake faults have been recognized in the vicinity of the site. Due to the proximity to other active faults, the potential for the project site to experience significant ground motion and other earthquake-related phenomena is high. Therefore, the following mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.7a-1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project applicant shall submit plans to the City of Half Moon Bay for review and approval demonstrating project compliance with the 2007 California Building Standards Code (or most recent version) seismic requirements and the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical investigation. All soil engineering recommendations and structural foundations shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. All on-site soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed geotechnical engineer or certified engineering geologist.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to the issuance of building permits

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department and Building Department

Mitigation measure MM 4.7a-1 requires that the project demonstrate compliance with the CBSC, which includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without collapsing and includes measures such as anchoring to the foundation and structural frame design. The mitigation also requires the project to be in compliance with the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical investigation.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-66 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Therefore, mitigation measure MM 4.7a-1 would ensure that impacts associated with seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level.

iii) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As described above, mitigation measure MM 4.7a-1 requires that the project demonstrate compliance with the CBSC and a design-level geotechnical investigation. Chapter 18, Section 1803.3 of the CBSC, which would apply to the proposed project, requires geotechnical investigations to be based on observation and any necessary tests of the materials disclosed by borings, test pits, or other subsurface exploration. The geotechnical investigations are also required to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on soil-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, and expansiveness. Section 1803.6(5) requires that the geotechnical investigations include recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including but not limited to, bearing capacity of natural or compacted soil; provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils; mitigation of the effects of liquefaction, differential settlement, and varying soil strength; and the effects of adjacent loads. These requirements would reduce the potential for project-site residents and structures to experience loss, injury, or death resulting from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, to a less than significant level.

iv) No Impact. The project site is topographically flat; therefore, the likelihood of landslides is minimal. No impact associated with landslides is expected to occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would involve vegetation removal, grading, and other activities that could expose project site soils to sources of wind or water, resulting in the potential for erosion and sedimentation. As discussed further under Subsection 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program regulates stormwater runoff from construction sites, which includes erosion and sedimentation. Any project disturbing 1 or more acres of soil, or if disturbing less than 1 acre but part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs 1 or more acres (such as the project site), is required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that must list best management practices (BMPs) which, among other things, prevent or reduce the movement of increased sediment/erosion from land to surface water or groundwater. Standard construction BMPs are available in the California Stormwater Quality Association handbooks (CASQA 2003). Typical BMPs intended to control erosion include sand bags, detention basins, silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, street sweeping, and monitoring of water bodies. Compliance with the Construction General Permit would ensure that erosion associated with the project would be reduced to less than significant. c–d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The geotechnical feasibility study prepared for the project (Acacia CE 2011a) determined that the project site is considered geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, and no geologic conditions were found that would preclude use of the property as planned (Acacia CE 2011a, p. 7). Furthermore, mitigation measure MM 4.7a-1 requires that the project demonstrate compliance with the CBSC and a design-level geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical report would include recommendations, design criteria, and specifications to reduce impacts related to unstable soils. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the CBSC and commonly accepted engineering practices, which require special design and construction methods for

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-67 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

dealing with unstable soil behavior. Compliance with recommendations included in the geotechnical report and the CBSC would ensure that soils on the site would be capable of supporting the proposed structures and would therefore reduce impacts resulting from expansive and unstable soils to a less than significant level. e) No Impact. The project does not propose the use or construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impact would occur.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-68 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 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 reasonable 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 2 miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-69 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

SETTING

This section is based, in part, on the Modified Phase One Environmental Assessment Report (ESA) prepared for the project in November 2011 by Acacia CE (Appendix F).

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES

The ESA included a search of federal, tribal, state, and local databases regarding the project site and nearby properties. The searches identified a large cluster of facilities located approximately a quarter mile north and east of the project site with a variety of impacts to both soil and groundwater. These sites are concentrated in downtown Half Moon Bay generally along the Main Street corridor. The sites identified include gas stations, repair shops, private residences, telecommunications companies, plumbing companies, and schools. Based on the distances to the identified database sites, regional topographic gradient, and the Environmental Data Resource (EDR) findings, it is unlikely that the listed sites pose an environmental risk to the project site.

PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS

The ESA included a site reconnaissance for hazardous materials storage, superficial staining or discoloration, debris, stressed vegetation, or other conditions indicative of potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination on the project site. The site reconnaissance identified the following:

Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Uses. No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed within the project site during the site reconnaissance.

Storage Tanks. No aboveground storage tanks or evidence of existing underground storage tanks were observed during the site reconnaissance.

Odors. No odors indicative of hazardous materials or petroleum material impacts were noted at the time of the reconnaissance.

Pools of Potentially Hazardous Liquid. No pools of potentially hazardous liquid were observed within the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.

Drums. No drums were observed on the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.

Hazardous Substance and Petroleum Product Containers. No hazardous substance or petroleum product containers were observed on the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). One pole-mounted transformer along with pole-mounted power lines were both observed along the eastern boundary of the project site.

Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons. No pits, ponds, or lagoons were observed within the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.

Stained Soil/Pavement. No stained soil or pavement was observed within the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.

Stressed Vegetation. No signs of stressed vegetation were observed on the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-70 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Solid Waste/Debris. A small quantity of wood and metal debris and a small layer of fill material were observed near the southeast corner of the project site.

Wastewater. No wastewater conveyance systems were observed at the property during the reconnaissance.

Wells. No wells were found within the project site during site reconnaissance.

Septic Systems. No septic systems were found within the project site during site reconnaissance.

RESIDUAL PESTICIDES

As part of the ESA, a total of ten near-surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for pesticides and lead using United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) methods. The analysis revealed no evidence that the project site received high levels of persistent pesticides while it was in use for agricultural purposes.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Clean Water Act

Clean Air Act

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title 10)

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Cal/EPA Unified Program

California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

Underground Storage Tank Program

Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plan) Program

California Fire and Building Code

Defensible Space Requirements

LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

County of San Mateo Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)

o Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-71 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

o Hazardous Waste Generator Program

o The California Accidental Release Program

o Hazardous Materials Program Fees

o Underground Storage Tank Program

o Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) Form Index

o Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Program

o California Environmental Reporting System (CERS)

County of San Mateo Household Hazardous Waste Program

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a–c) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. Generally speaking, these land uses would not be expected to involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials.

However, residents may store and/or use materials classified as household hazardous waste (HHW), including common items such as paints, cleaners, motor oil, pesticides, batteries, lamps, televisions, and computer monitors. San Mateo County has a free Household Hazardous Waste Program that educates the public about the dangers of toxic household wastes and helps people to dispose of waste properly, including residents of the City of Half Moon Bay. San Mateo County residents may drop off a full range of HHW at collection events held virtually every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday (except holiday weekends) at the permanent facility in San Mateo. Rotating collections are also held at several other locations on a monthly or annual basis and at special events in Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley, and La Honda (County of San Mateo 2011).

In addition, state law prohibits the transportation of more than 5 gallons or 50 pounds of hazardous waste without a hazardous materials transportation license. Therefore, it is anticipated that the transport of additional household hazardous waste to and from the project site would be in relatively small amounts and would not result in significant hazards to the public or the environment. The County‘s HHW Disposal Program, along with state law, would reduce impacts associated with increased generation and transport of HHW as a result of implementation of the project to a less than significant level.

A limited amount of hazardous materials could be required during construction of the project (i.e., motor oils, mastic coatings, propane and butane, pressurized gases, automatic transmission fluid, gasoline and diesel fuels, bottled oxygen and acetylene, lubricating grease, antifreeze, brake fluids, brazing and solder compounds, disinfectants, and hydraulic fluids). Small quantities of hazardous waste could also be used, transported, or disposed of by retail commercial uses on the project site. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials associated with the project would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations (listed in the Regulatory

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-72 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Framework discussion above) during both construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. The San Mateo County Environmental Health Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San Mateo County, including the City of Half Moon Bay and the project site, and is responsible for consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of six state programs regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. As the CUPA, the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division inspects businesses or facilities that handle or store hazardous materials, generate and/or treat hazardous waste, own or operate underground storage tanks, store petroleum in aboveground tanks over state thresholds, and store federally regulated hazardous materials over state thresholds. These inspections determine compliance with state and federal law and include review of Hazardous Material Business Plans, documentation of employee training programs, disposal documentation for hazardous waste generated on-site, and underground storage tank monitoring records. Any development on the project site that handles or stores hazardous materials would be subject to these inspections, which would ensure compliance with state and federal law intended to prevent potential hazards to the public and the environment. Compliance with these federal, state, and local hazardous materials regulations and codes would ensure that site-specific impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazards materials would be reduced to a less than significant level. d) No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The site reconnaissance and records review conducted as part of the ESA did not find documentation or physical evidence of soil or groundwater impairments associated with the use of the project site, including past agricultural use. A review of regulatory databases maintained by county, state, and federal agencies found no documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the project site. A review of regulatory agency records and available databases did not identify contaminated facilities within the appropriate ASTM search distances that would be expected to impact the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) No Impact. The closest public airport to the project site is the Half Moon Bay Airport, which is located over 4 miles to the northwest. The project site is not located within the Half Moon Bay Airport Land Use Plan (San Mateo County ALUC 1995, p. III-8). Therefore, the proposed project will not result in an airport safety hazard for people residing on the project site and no impact will occur. f) No Impact. There are no private airports or airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact will occur. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes a private road to provide access to both the residential and commercial lots. The road will extend from Church Street to a direct connection to Highway 1. The San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services designates Highway 1 in the City of Half Moon Bay as a tsunami evacuation route. The proposed connection to Highway 1 would not impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation on the highway. The project would not otherwise impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would be less than significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-73 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS h) No Impact. The project site is located in a primarily urban setting, surrounded by public, commercial, office, and residential development. There are no wildland areas adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site. As such, there is no risk of loss, injury, or death due to wildland fires. In the event of a fire, the Coastside Fire Protection District will provide fire and emergency services for the project area (please refer to Subsection 4.14, Public Services, of this IS/MND). Therefore, no impact will occur.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-74 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater

table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard

Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,

which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

SETTING

This section is based, in part, on the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the project in November 2011 by Acacia CE (Appendix G).

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-75 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY

The project site is bounded to the north by Pilarcitos Creek, which originates on the eastern side of Montara Mountain and flows about 12 miles to the Pacific Ocean near the City of Half Moon Bay. It is the principal watercourse draining the coastal Pilarcitos Creek watershed of approximately 17,900 acres (about 28 square miles) in San Mateo County. The watershed encompasses seven subwatersheds containing the following smaller tributaries: Nuff Creek, Corinda Los Trancos Creek, Apanolio Creek, Albert Canyon, Madonna Creek, Mills Creek, and Arroyo Leon (PWA 2008).

Pilarcitos Creek can be divided into three broad reaches: Upper Pilarcitos, above the confluence with the seven tributaries; Middle Pilarcitos, primarily confined to an agricultural and residential floodplain valley; and Lower Pilarcitos, which flows through the City of Half Moon Bay to the Pacific Coast. The project site is within the Lower Pilarcitos.

The project site currently drains via sheet flow to the north into Pilarcitos Creek. No drainage improvements are currently located on the site (Acacia CE 2011c, p. 3).

Water Quality

Extensive water quality monitoring in the Pilarcitos Creek watershed has shown consistently high fecal coliform counts compared to other coastal streams; the data also indicates that trace metals, nitrates, and suspended sediment concentrations were elevated periodically over the period from 2003 to 2006. Potential sources of contaminants include horse manure from trails, fecal waste from a large seagull population, which may be related to the proximity to the Browning-Ferris Industries Ox Mountain Landfill, and streamside defecation by agricultural laborers and transient residents of Half Moon Bay (PWA 2008).

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES

As discussed in detail under Subsection 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the Coastside County Water District (CCWD) provides potable water to the City of Half Moon Bay, including the project site. Approximately 4 percent of the CCWD‘s supplies consist of groundwater from the Half Moon Bay Terrace Basin (DWR Basin Number 2-22). The basin, which covers 9,150 acres, is not adjudicated and has not been identified by the Department of Water Resources as being in an overdraft condition (CCWD 2010, p. 3-7).

Specifically, the CCWD pumps groundwater from the Airport Terrace Subbasin, which is a smaller subbasin of the Half Moon Bay Terrace Basin. Approximately 513 acre-feet per year (AF/Y) of groundwater is pumped annually from the subbasin, with 169 AF/Y of average annual pumping by the CCWD, 224 AF/Y of average annual pumping by the Montara Water and Sanitary District, approximately 96 AF/Y of average annual pumping from six agricultural wells, and approximately 24 AF/Y of pumping from 87 domestic and other wells. The water table drops during the dry years, but can quickly rebound during wet years, and the subbasin appears to be in long-term hydrologic balance (CCWD 2010, p. 3-8). Baseflows in Denniston Creek provide significant recharge to the subbasin, with some additional recharge from agricultural irrigation ponds at the northeast portion of the subbasin (CCWD 2010, p. 3-9).

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-76 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

FLOODING

The proposed project is located in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Zone C, which is an area of minimal flood hazard outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area.

Dam Inundation

According to the Association of Bay Area Government‘s Dam Failure Inundation Map for Half Moon Bay, the project site is within the inundation area for Pilarcitos Dam (ABAG 1995). Pilarcitos Dam is a 103-foot earthen dam on Pilarcitos Creek in San Mateo County, approximately 6 miles northeast of the project site. Construction was completed in 1866. The dam is rock fill and drains an area of 3.8 square miles. The reservoir has a capacity of 3,100 acre-feet (DOSD 2010). Pilarcitos Dam is owned by the County/City of San Francisco and is under the jurisdiction of the California Division of Safety of Dams.

Tsunami

A tsunami is a sea wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or even by a large meteor hitting the ocean. Tsunamis generally affect coastal communities and low-lying (low-elevation) river valleys in the vicinity of the coast. Buildings closest to the ocean and near sea level are most at jeopardy (CGS 2009).

The project site is approximately 0.79 miles east of the coast of the Pacific Ocean. However, the California Geological Survey‘s Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Half Moon Bay Quadrangle (2009) indicates that the project site is outside of the expected tsunami inundation area.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Clean Water Act

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program

National Flood Insurance Program

LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP)

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapters 13.04 and 13.05

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-77 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a & f) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. These uses could result in both construction and operational impacts to water quality and discharge standards.

Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts

Construction associated with development of the project would consist of grading and vegetation removal activities that could increase soil erosion rates and impact surface runoff by increasing the amount of silt and debris carried by runoff. In addition, refueling and parking of construction equipment and other vehicles on-site during construction could result in spills of oil, grease, or related pollutants that may discharge into the creek.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has issued a statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Any project disturbing 1 or more acres of soil is required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that must list best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP is required to contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for ―non-visible‖ pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. The proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit and prepare a SWPPP with appropriate best management practices to prevent or reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other pollutants from the land to surface water or groundwater and to generally protect water quality from potential adverse effects of development activities. Standard construction BMPs are available in the California Stormwater Quality Association handbooks (CASQA 2003). Compliance with the Construction General Permit would ensure that construction- related water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Water Quality Impacts

Urban development often involves the conventional maintenance of yards, for example, using fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals in and around the home that can enter stormwater runoff and degrade water quality. In addition, motor vehicle operation and maintenance introduces oil, antifreeze, and other petroleum- based products, heavy metals such as copper from brake linings, and surfactants from cleaners and waxes into residential stormwater runoff. Pet and animal waste from yards, trails, parks, and stream corridors can enter stormwater runoff as well.

The Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the project (Acacia CE 2011c) calculated the anticipated increase in stormwater discharge associated with the proposed project during small/infrequent storms, assuming no low impact development standards or best management practices in order to predict a worst-case scenario. The calculations show an increase in estimated discharge from 0.11 cubic feet per second to 0.31 cubic feet per second into Pilarcitos Creek during small/infrequent storm events.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-78 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The project site is under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP), which administers the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). Adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 2009, the MRP includes prescriptive requirements for incorporating post-construction stormwater control/low impact development measures into new development and redevelopment projects. These requirements are known as Provision C.3 requirements.

According to C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance (C.3 Guidance), beginning December 1, 2011, the MRP will require stormwater treatment requirements to be met by using evapotranspiration, infiltration, and rainwater harvesting and reuse. Where this is not feasible, landscape-based biotreatment will be allowed. Stormwater treatment measures must be sized to comply with one of the hydraulic design criteria in the MRP.

The C.3 Guidance specifies that projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface have to comply with Provision C.3 requirements. The proposed project will add over 90,000 square feet of developable space. Therefore, the proposed project will be required to implement the following practices:

Site design measures;

Source control measures; and

Low impact development treatment measures that are hydraulically sized as specified by the MRP.

In addition, the project site is in an area susceptible to hydromodification. Therefore, hydromodification management will be required.

In addition to the above requirements, the ESA prepared for the project recommended preparation of a design-level drainage study. Therefore, the following mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.9af-1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall be required to develop and submit a design-level drainage study, which shall include more precise calculations of stormwater runoff for small/frequent storms as well as flood-level events based on the actual structures proposed (site management). In addition, best management practice sizing of drainage structures shall be included. The study shall demonstrate specific reduction measures consistent with C.3 Guidance and quantify reductions in stormwater flows.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning Department and Building Department

The implementation of measures consistent with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and mitigation measure MM 4.9af-1 above would ensure that the quality of discharged water from the project would not be substantially degraded and subsequent operational water quality impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-79 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS b) Less Than Significant Impact. The CCWD provides potable water to the project site. Approximately 4 percent of the CCWD‘s supplies consist of groundwater from the Half Moon Bay Terrace Basin (DWR Basin Number 2-22). According to the Coastside County Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the subbasin appears to be in long- term hydrologic balance (CCWD 2010, p. 3-8). Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. Construction and operation of these facilities will require water supplies from the CCWD and could therefore increase groundwater consumption from the Half Moon Bay Terrace Basin. However, a very small percentage of CCWD groundwater supplies come from groundwater (4 percent). In addition, the proposed project will be required to comply with Chapters 13.04 (Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations) and 13.05 (Indoor Water Use Efficiency Regulations) of the City‘s Municipal Code. These regulations require that water efficiency standards be met by indoor water fixtures (toilets, showers, faucets, clothes washers, etc.) as well as outdoor landscaping. These regulations will minimize water demand, and thus groundwater demand, associated with the project. Based on the relatively small amount of development proposed on the site (20 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail commercial), the small percentage of the CCWD water supplies that come from groundwater (4 percent), and the City‘s water efficiency regulations, the proposed project is not expected to substantially deplete groundwater supplies such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, impacts associated with the groundwater basin would be less than significant. c–e) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site by increasing impervious surfaces and thus increasing the quantity and quality of surface runoff. Increased surface runoff could increase the potential for localized flooding and/or erosion both on- and off-site if allowed to exit the project area unchecked. In addition, stormwater runoff water could exceed the capacity of stormwater drainage systems and provide an additional source of polluted runoff.

As discussed under a & f) above, the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program and mitigation measure MM 4.9af-1 above, which would ensure that the quality of discharged water from the project would not be substantially degraded.

In addition, the proposed project would provide drainage infrastructure, including catch basins and an oil-water separator. Drainage from the site would be discharged to Pilarcitos Creek. The drainage study required per mitigation measure MM 4.9af-1 would include precise calculations of stormwater runoff for small/frequent storms as well as flood-level events based on the actual structures proposed, as well as best management practice sizing of drainage structures. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. g–h) No Impact. The project site is located in FEMA Zone C, which is an area of minimal flood hazard outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area. The project site is not located within the FEMA-designated 100-year or 500-year floodplain. Therefore, the project would not result in the placement of housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area or the redirection of flood flows. No impact would occur.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-80 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS i) Less Than Significant Impact. Dams built to hold the water in reservoirs can be damaged due to a huge storm and associated runoff, an earthquake, slope failures, or a terrorism event. According to the Association of Bay Area Government‘s Dam Failure Inundation Map for Half Moon Bay, the project site is within the inundation area for Pilarcitos Dam (ABAG 1995). As such, implementation of the proposed project will place residential and retail commercial structures within the Pilarcitos Dam inundation area. No quantitative probability information exists for dam failure hazard in the Bay Area, including from the Pilarcitos Dam, in part because when a dam is known to have failure potential, the water level is reduced to allow for partial collapse without loss of water as required by the California Division of Safety of Dams and by safety protocols established by dam owners. In addition, dams under the jurisdiction of the California Division of Safety of Dams are annually inspected during their impoundment life to ensure they are performing and being maintained in a safe manner. The Division of Safety of Dams also periodically reviews the stability of dams and their major appurtenances in light of improved design approaches and requirements as well as new findings regarding earthquake hazards and hydrologic estimates in California. Thus, dam failure is not is considered a reasonably foreseeable event, and risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a dam is considered to be less than significant. j) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the California Geological Survey‘s Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Half Moon Bay Quadrangle (2009), the project site is outside of the expected tsunami inundation area. In addition, the City of Half Moon Bay is identified by the National Weather Service as a ―tsunami ready‖ community, meaning that the City has met certain criteria to prepare for tsunamis such as establishing a 24-hour warning point and emergency operations center, having more than one way to receive tsunami warnings and to alert the public, and promoting public readiness through community education and the distribution of information. In the event of a tsunami, in cooperation with the County of San Mateo Emergency Services, the City would implement tsunami warning sirens, announcements disseminated over the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather all-hazard radio system, automated telephone notification, text message on cellular phones, and e-mail addresses. These preparedness and warning measures will reduce potential loss of life associated with tsunamis. Because the project site is outside of the tsunami inundation area and because the City has been identified as tsunami ready, impacts are considered less than significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-81 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan?

SETTING

Existing Land Uses

The project site is currently vacant and is surrounded by Pilarcitos Creek to the north and northeast, Highway 1 to the west, the City Police Station, a vacant lot owned by the Our Lady of the Pillar Catholic Church, and the Shoreline Station retail and office property to the south, and residential development to the east. Historically, the project site has been used for agricultural uses, including agriculture-associated buildings on the site.

Local Coastal Program Designations

The City‘s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of two components: (1) a Land Use Plan and (2) an Implementation Program. The Land Use Plan is composed of a Land Use Map and a policy document. The City considers its LCP Land Use Plan as the functional equivalent of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The City‘s Implementation Program consists of Title 18 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code) together with its zoning district map. Other implementing actions that pertain to sensitive coastal resource areas are also contained in the Zoning Code.

The LCP designates the site as Commercial-General. According to the LCP, this designation identifies areas suitable for various commercial activities, including downtown business uses and arterial commercial uses. Permitted uses range from convenience activities which serve day-today needs to general office, wholesale, retail, and other commercial activities. The designation is intended to be consistent with existing zoning for general and neighborhood commercial uses.

Downtown Specific Plan

The project site is also within the boundaries of the Half Moon Bay Downtown Specific Plan, which identifies key development sites that are suitable for development to higher-intensity land uses. The project site is included in Key Development Site Number 1. The Specific Plan states that possible land uses on the site could include tourist-oriented development such as a resort/hotel restaurant complex or a project with less intensive environmental impacts that preserves and incorporates the area‘s biological resources (City of Half Moon Bay 1995, p. 12).

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-82 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Zoning

The site is zoned Commercial Downtown (C-D), a district intended to implement the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan calling for the establishment of development standards and a range of uses that would be maintained and be consistent with the historic patterns and pedestrian scale of development within the historic downtown area. The C-D district is intended to provide for visitor-serving commercial uses such as restaurants and art galleries, certain public uses, and other retail and commercial uses. In the C-D district, single- and multi-family residential uses are permitted with approval of a Use Permit. Structures providing three or more residential units require Planning Commission approval of a Use Permit as well as Architectural Review Committee approval.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (1993)

Half Moon Bay Downtown Specific Plan (1995)

Title 18 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Code)

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) No Impact. The proposed project is located on a vacant lot that does not serve as a linkage between surrounding land uses. The project is infill development and will not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact will occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of residential and retail commercial uses on land currently designated Commercial-General. According to the LCP, this designation identifies areas suitable for various commercial activities. However, the site is zoned C-D, a district which allows single- and multi-family residential uses with approval of a Use Permit. The proposed project includes a Use Permit and upon approval will be an allowed use. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with any applicable City land use plans that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects, and this impact would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The City of Half Moon Bay does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-83 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a 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?

SETTING

In San Mateo County, mineral resources identified as occurring and having potential for utilization are gemstones, oil and gas, mineral water, salines, stone (crushed and broken), and limestone and shells. Of these, gemstones and oil and gas are identified as small resources or resources usable only at a high price. Mineral water, salines, limestones, shells, and crushed stone are classified as significant resources being used. No geothermal resources have been identified in San Mateo County (San Mateo County 1986).

In the Half Moon Bay area, oil and gas recovery occurs in the Half Moon Bay Field. In addition, a significant stone deposit (Pilarcitos Quarry) is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Half Moon Bay and about 1 mile north of State Route 92. This area is underlain by rocks that range from granite to quartz diorite (San Mateo County 1986). According to the San Mateo County General Plan, the project site and the surrounding area do not contain any mineral resources.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

State Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA)

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a–b) No Impact. According to the San Mateo County General Plan, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Furthermore, the project area is generally developed and there is no evidence that the area contains mineral resources valuable to the region or locally. The City‘s LCP does not designate the project site or the surrounding area as rich in mineral resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a resource delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-84 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

12. NOISE. Would the project: a) The exposure of persons to, or the generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in

the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) The exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

SETTING

AMBIENT NOISE ENVIRONMENT

The noise environment in the proposed project area is defined primarily by vehicular traffic on Highway 1 and, to a lesser extent, nearby retail and office uses to the south and residential development to the east.

Noise-Sensitive Receptors

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist predominantly of residential land uses. The nearest existing residential land uses are located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-85 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24

State of California General Plan Guidelines

LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (1993)

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a, c–d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Noise generated by the proposed project would occur during short-term construction and long-term operation. The City of Half Moon Bay Noise Element establishes maximum noise levels allowable for new developments affected by transportation-related noise sources. For new single-family residential uses, the City limits the interior noise to 40 decibels (dB) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and limits the exterior noise to 60 dB CNEL.

SHORT-TERM INCREASES IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS

Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending upon the nature or phase (e.g., demolition/land clearing, grading and excavation, erection) of construction. Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Although noise ranges were found to be similar for all construction phases, the grading phase tends to involve the most equipment, resulting in slightly higher average-hourly noise levels. Typical noise levels for individual pieces of construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.12-1. As depicted, individual equipment noise levels typically range from approximately 75 to 91 dBA at 50 feet, without noise control. With noise control, individual equipment noise levels typically range from approximately 75 to 80 dBA at 50 feet. Typical operating cycles may involve 2 minutes of full power, followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower settings. Depending on the activities performed and equipment usage requirements, combined average-hourly noise levels at construction sites typically range from approximately 65 to 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet (USEPA 1971).

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-86 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

TABLE 4.12-1 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS

Noise Level in dBA at 50 feet Type of Equipment Without Feasible With Feasible Noise Control Noise Control 1 Dozer or Tractor 80 75 Excavator 88 80 Compactor 82 75 Front-end Loader 79 75 Backhoe 85 75 Grader 85 75 Crane 83 75 Generator 78 75 Truck 91 75

1. Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers, and engine shrouds. Sources: USEPA 1971; FTA 2006

Construction activities may expose nearby sensitive receptors, particularly existing residential uses adjacent to the project site on the east, to significant noise levels. Mitigation measure MM 4.12acd-1 requires the implementation of various construction noise control measures that would avoid or minimize loud or intrusive construction noise. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to less than significant level. Construction noise is generally considered a temporary environmental nuisance associated with project implementation.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.12acd-1 The following noise attenuation requirements shall apply to all construction activities associated with the project:

• Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM on weekdays, 8 AM and 6 PM on Saturdays, and 10 AM and 6 PM on Sundays and holidays.

• All construction equipment shall use noise-reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer.

• Construction staging and heavy equipment maintenance activities shall be performed a minimum distance of 100 feet from the nearest off-site residence, unless safety or technical factors take precedence.

• Stationary combustion-driven equipment such as pumps or generators operating within 100 feet of any off-site residence shall be shielded with a noise protection barrier.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-87 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Timing/Implementation: During construction activities

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning and Building Department

Implementation of the above mitigation measure would prohibit noise-generating activities from occurring during the more noise-sensitive periods of the day and would reduce short-term noise impacts to the residential land uses to the east of the project site. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.

PERMANENT INCREASES IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS

Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased noise levels associated with vehicle traffic on area roadways and on-site stationary noise sources from both residential and retail commercial uses. The City of Half Moon Bay Noise Element establishes maximum noise levels allowable for new developments affected by transportation-related noise sources. For new single-family residential uses, the City limits the interior noise to 40 decibels (dB) community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and limits the exterior noise to 60 dB CNEL. These standards could be exceeded by the proposed project.

Exposure to Traffic Noise

Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased local traffic volumes on area roadways. As discussed in the Transportation and Circulation sub-section below, the project is expected to generate 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 36 gross trips during the PM peak hour, with a total of 32 net new trips. This volume of traffic is not expected to generate significant noise levels in the neighborhood. The commercial component will generate significantly more traffic during the course of a typical business day, with all commercial traffic accessing the project via Highway 1.

The new residential uses are located over 300 feet from Highway 1. According to the General Plan Noise Element (pp. 11–14), the distance to the 60 dB CNEL noise contour resulting from existing (1990) and future traffic ranges from 429 to 541 feet, respectively, at this location. This means that the closest lots—#1 through #4—may fall between the 60 dB and 65 dB contours. With an exterior noise standard of 60dB, these closest lots may experience unacceptable noise levels from both Highway 1 and from adjacent commercial uses. As such, mitigation measure MM 4.12acd-2 is required.

Noise from New Residential Land Uses

Stationary-source noise associated with residential development is primarily associated with the operation of central air conditioning units. To a lesser extent, noise from people talking, amplified music, and use of landscape maintenance equipment may also contribute to intermittent increases in ambient noise levels. However, increases in ambient noise levels from such sources are often sporadic and are typically limited to the less noise-sensitive daytime hours. Noise generated by the proposed residential dwellings would not result in an increase in ambient noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive land uses that would be anticipated to exceed applicable City noise standards. As a result, noise generated by proposed on-site residential land uses would be considered less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-88 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Commercial Land Uses

The proposed project includes development of retail commercial land uses near the western boundary of the project site. Noise sources commonly associated with commercial uses can include occasional parking lot activities (e.g., opening and closing of vehicle doors, people talking), material delivery and truck unloading activities (e.g., use of forklifts, hydraulic lifts), and the operation of building mechanical equipment. Mitigation measure MM 4.12acd-2 would reduce stationary source noise levels attributable to the proposed retail commercial uses.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.12acd-2 Prior to approval of final maps, the project applicant shall incorporate noise attenuation measures (barriers) into the site plan/subdivision design to reduce noise levels at exterior residential lots to less than 60 dB CNEL. Such measures shall be ideally located between the commercial and residential lots to shield residences from both roadway (Highway 1) and commercial noise sources. Measures may consist of berms, fencing, or masonry walls, or a combination of features, at an appropriate height. Noise attenuation measures shall be designed for aesthetics as well as function to avoid any negative visual impacts. Effectiveness and height of the noise barrier shall be demonstrated to the City in the form of an acoustical evaluation prepared by a qualified professional.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to final map approval

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Half Moon Bay Planning and Building Department

Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.12acd-2 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project could result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Table 4.12-2 displays vibration levels for typical construction equipment.

TABLE 4.12-2 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION-EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS

Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)1 Approximate Lv at 25 feet2 Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson Drilling 0.089 87 Trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small Bulldozer 0.003 58

1Where PPV is the peak particle velocity 2 Where 1_, is the velocity level in decibels (VdB) referenced to 1 microinch/second and based on the root mean square (RMS) velocity amplitude. Source: FTA 2006

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-89 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

On-site construction equipment could include dozers and trucks. According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA), vibration levels associated with the use of a large bulldozer is 0.089 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) and 87 vibration decibels [VdB referenced to 1 microinch per second (gin/sec) and based on the RMS velocity amplitude] at 25 feet. Using the FTA‘s recommended procedure for applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, predicted worst-case vibration levels of approximately 0.03 in/sec PPV and 81 VdB at approximately 50 feet from a project site‘s boundary could occur from use of a large bulldozer. These vibration levels would not exceed Caltrans‘ recommended standard of 0.2 in/sec PPV (Caltrans 2002) with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings. The nearest residences are approximately 80 feet from the eastern project site boundary; therefore, project construction would not be expected to expose off-site sensitive receptors to vibration levels that would be considered excessive. As a result, this impact is considered less than significant. e–f) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest airport to the project site is the Half Moon Bay Airport, which is located over 4 miles to the northwest. The project site is not located within the Half Moon Bay Airport Land Use Plan (San Mateo County ALUC 1995, p. III-8). Therefore, the airport operations would not be expected to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and a less than significant impact is anticipated to occur.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-90 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with Significant Significant No Impact the Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

EXISTING SETTING

The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the 2011 population of the City of Half Moon Bay to be 11,415 (DOF 2011a). Table 4.13-1 shows population trends for Half Moon Bay between 2000 and 2011. The city‘s population declined regularly during this time period, with the exception of slight increases in population between 2004 and 2005, 2008 and 2009, and 2010 and 2011.

TABLE 4.13-1 HISTORICAL POPULATION CHANGE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY 2000–2011

Year Population Change 2000 11,842 N/A 2001 11,779 -63 2002 11,722 -57 2003 11,659 -63 2004 11,552 -107 2005 11,629 77 2006 11,493 -136 2007 11,408 -85 2008 11,396 -12 2009 11,403 7 2010 11,324 -79 2011 11,415 91 Source: DOF 2011a, 2011b

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-91 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

HOUSING

As shown in Table 4.13-2, the DOF estimates that the City of Half Moon Bay contains 4,401 housing units as of 2011. Of those units, 246 are estimated to be vacant (DOF 2011b). According to the City‘s adopted Housing Element Background Report, the average household size in Half Moon Bay is approximately 2.78 persons per household (City of Half Moon Bay 2010, p. 1-5).

TABLE 4.13-2 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY 2011 HOUSING UNITS

Total Total Total Vacant Vacancy Rate Population Housing Units Households Units 11,415 4,401 4,155 246 5.59% Source: DOF 2011c

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 17.06

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. Based on the city‘s average household size of 2.78 persons per household, these improvements will directly induce growth of 20 housing units and approximately 55.6 persons (2.78 persons per household x 20 units = 55.6 persons).

In November of 1999, the City adopted a residential growth limitation initiative (Measure D) establishing that the number of residential dwelling units for which the City may authorize allocations each calendar year shall not exceed the number of units that would result in a growth of 1 percent of the city‘s population, plus an additional 0.5 percent in the downtown area. The initiative is implemented via City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 17.06, which requires that the City Council adopt an annual residential dwelling unit allocation by December 31 of each year. For year 2011, the City Council assigned a total of 72 Dwelling Unit Allocations, with 48 allocated within the downtown area and the remaining 24 allocated outside the downtown area. The project site is within the downtown area, and the proposed 20 residential units will represent 42 percent of the 2011 Dwelling Unit Allocations for the downtown area. The project applicant submitted an application for Dwelling Unit Allocations in [INSERT DATE], and the City determined that the project will not exceed the number of units that would result in a growth of 1 percent of the city‘s population, plus an additional 0.5 percent in the downtown area. [CITY TO CONFIRM THAT THIS IS TRUE] Therefore, the population and housing growth resulting from the proposed project does not exceed planned growth in the city and would not be considered substantial. The impact would be less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-92 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS b–c) No Impact. The project site is vacant and does not contain any residences. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-93 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant with Significant Significant No Impact the Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation

14. PUBLIC SERVICES. 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?

SETTING

Fire Protection

The Coastside Fire Protection District (CFPD) provides fire protection services to the City of Half Moon Bay, the unincorporated areas of Half Moon Bay, and the unincorporated communities of Miramar, El Granada, Princeton-by-the-Sea, Moss Beach, and Montara. Services provided by the CFPD include fire suppression, fire prevention, emergency medical services, rescue services, and public education. The CFPD responds to approximately 2,300 calls for service each year. These incidents include emergency medical service, water rescue, cliff rescue, traffic accidents, odor investigations, fires, hazardous materials, and public service assists. The CFPD operates three fire stations: Fire Station 40 is located within the downtown area of the City of Half Moon Bay, Fire Station 41 is located in the unincorporated area of El Granada, and Fire Station 44 is located in the Moss Beach Area (CFPD 2009).

Police Protection

The Half Moon Bay Police Department (HMBPD) provides law enforcement services in the city. The HMBPD is managed by a police chief with two direct reports: a police captain responsible for Patrol Services and support services such as the school resource officer, investigations, canine and motors, and a records supervisor overseeing administrative functions such as Records and Property and Evidence. Dispatch services are provided through a contract with the San Mateo County Communications Department, a regional dispatch center for law enforcement, fire, and EMS dispatch. The HMBPD service area is 6.4 square miles. The HMBPD full-time staffing is 18 sworn and 5 non-sworn personnel (San Mateo County LAFCO 2008, pp. 44).

Schools

Public education services in the city are provided by the Cabrillo Unified School District (CUSD). The CUSD encompasses an area of approximately 135 square miles and currently operates four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, one continuation school, and an adult education program, which provide education for approximately 3,800 students. As shown in Table 4.14-1 below, enrollment in the CUSD is generally declining, with the only increase in enrollment in the past decade occurring between the 2006/07 and 2007/08 school years (CDE 2011).

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-94 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

TABLE 4.14-1 CUSD ENROLLMENT

School Year

School

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Alvin S. Hatch 608 608 612 632 504 518 515 532 545 561 584 Elementary El Granada Elementary 513 489 451 452 505 529 501 501 507 500 488 Farallone View 447 474 478 461 473 464 456 453 449 429 401 Elementary Half Moon Bay High 1,218 1,229 1,158 1,169 1,125 1,133 1,064 1,050 1,041 987 971 Kings Mountain 62 56 52 50 59 70 77 78 82 83 86 Elementary Manuel F. Cunha 898 871 874 828 826 758 716 711 723 775 769 Intermediate Pilarcitos Alternative 20 26 24 41 42 35 41 38 39 39 41 High (Continuation) Total Enrollment 3,766 3,753 3,649 3,633 3,534 3,507 3,370 3,363 3,386 3,374 3,340 Source: CDE 2011

Parks

Parks are discussed under Subsection 4.15, Recreation, immediately following this section.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Uniform Fire Code

California Health and Safety Code

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a–e) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. Based on the city‘s average household size of 2.78 persons per household, these improvements will directly induce growth of 20 housing units and approximately 55.6 persons (2.78 persons per household x 20 units = 55.6 persons).

The proposed development would increase the demand for public services provided by the CFPD, the HMBPD, and the CUSD; however, as discussed in Subsection 4.13, Population and Housing, the population and housing growth resulting from the proposed project does not exceed planned growth in the city and would not be considered substantial. Furthermore, the project site is located in an existing urban area that is currently receiving public services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-95 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

need for new or physically altered public service facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, and this impact would be less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-96 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) 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) Include recreational facilities or require the Construction or expansion of recreational

facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

SETTING

The City of Half Moon Bay Public Works Department provides parks and recreation services in the city. The Building and Park Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the city‘s parks, grounds, facilities, street and park trees, and streets (San Mateo County LAFCO 2008, pp. 13–14).

PARKS

The city has 24 acres of developed parks as shown in Table 4.15-1. In addition, the City has agreements that permit public use of school playfields. The City has an adopted parkland standard of 7 acres of park/recreation land for each 1,000 persons residing within the city (Municipal Code Section 17.48.025). Based on this standard and the 2011 population of 11,415, the city should have approximately 79.9 acres of developed parks (11,415 persons/1,000 = 11.415 x 7 acres per 1,000). Therefore, the city would need an additional 55.9 acres of parkland to meet its parkland standard.

TABLE 4.15-1 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY DEVELOPED PARK ACREAGE

Park Developed Acreage Carter Park 1.10 Fernandez Park 0.20 Frenchman's Creek Park 3.77 Kehoe Park 0.15 Mac Dutra Park 0.09 Oak Avenue Park 3.24 Ocean View Park 0.45 Smith Field (Leased) 15.00 Total 24.00 Source: San Mateo County LAFCO 2008

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-97 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

The Recreation Division, within the Public Works Department, provides a variety of activities for residents of all ages and interests, including instructional classes, youth and adult sports, teen activities, day camps, special needs programs, citywide special events, and a summer aquatics program. Residents of the city and the unincorporated area can register for these classes online. The Recreation Division operates a community center (the Ted Adcock Community Center) located at 535 Kelly Avenue. The center is open six days a week.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 17.48

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a–b) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of 20 housing units and 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses on the site, which will increase the city‘s population by approximately 56 persons as discussed under Subsection 4.13, Population and Housing. As such, the project will incrementally increase demand for neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The City has a parkland standard of 7 acres of parkland for each 1,000 persons residing within the city (Municipal Code Section 17.48.025). Based on this standard, the proposed project will result in the need for an additional 0.39 acres of parkland. The proposed project does not include any parkland and will therefore slightly exacerbate the city‘s existing shortage of parkland as described under Setting above. However, the population generated by the project would not be considered substantial enough to result in physical deterioration of parks or other recreational facilities, nor would the 0.39 acres of parkland required by the project be expected by itself to result in the construction of additional parkland. Instead, the proposed project would be required to pay an in-lieu fee per City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code Chapter 17.48. These fees are used for providing park and recreational facilities to serve residents of the city.

Given that the proposed project would contribute to the acquisition, improvement, and expansion of citywide parks, the project would not be expected to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-98 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand

measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or

pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

SETTING

This section is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project in October 2011 by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Appendix H). The streets and intersections listed under the Existing Roadway Network discussion and in Table 4.16-1 below constitute the study area (study streets and study intersections) analyzed the TIA.

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

Regional access to the project site will be provided by Highway 1. Direct access to the project site will be provided via Highway 1 and Church Street. These and other facilities in the vicinity of the project site are described below.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-99 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Highway 1 is a two- to four-lane highway that runs in a north–south direction. Highway 1 extends from San Francisco to Southern California along the Pacific Ocean coast. Highway 1 provides direct access to the commercial portion of the project site.

State Route 92 (San Mateo Road) is a two-lane east–west roadway that intersects Highway 1 and Main Street north of the project site in downtown Half Moon Bay. State Route 92 provides access to the San Mateo County coastal areas and points east of Half Moon Bay, including Interstate 280 and US 101, the City of San Mateo, and the East Bay Area via the San Mateo Bridge across San Francisco Bay.

Main Street is a two-lane north–south roadway that runs through downtown Half Moon Bay. It intersects State Route 92 and Mill Street in the vicinity of the project site.

Mill Street is a two-lane roadway that runs through downtown between Church Street in the west and San Benito Street in the east.

Church Street is a two-lane north–south roadway that begins just north of Correas Street and terminates as a cul-de-sac just north of Mill Street. Access to the residential portion of the project site would be provided by a driveway that extends from the existing cul-de-sac on Church Street.

Kelly Avenue is a two-lane east–west roadway that runs parallel to and south of Mill Street between Balboa Boulevard in the west and San Benito Road in the east. Its intersection with Highway 1 is signalized.

EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

A field survey of the study area (Hexagon 2011) indicated that pedestrian sidewalks are provided on all study streets except along Highway 1 and the south side of State Route (SR) 92. Crosswalks are provided at all study intersections across all intersection legs except for the intersection of Highway 1/SR 92 and Highway 1/Kelly Avenue. The intersection of Highway 1/SR 92 has crosswalks only for the north and west legs. The intersection of Highway 1/Kelly Avenue has crosswalks on all legs except the north leg. Wheelchair curb ramps are provided at all study intersections.

There are no existing sidewalks along Highway 1. A pedestrian/bicycle paved trail called the Highway 1 Trail extends from Seymour Street in the south to Kehoe Avenue in the north. This trail runs west of and parallel to Highway 1. The trail is discontinuous at Kelly Avenue, where pedestrians and bicycles need to use Kelly Avenue and Pilarcitos Avenue to connect back to the Highway 1 Trail, which then traverses under Highway 1. The City has plans to extend this trail farther north to Magellan Avenue.

There are striped bicycle lanes on Main Street between Highway 1 and SR 92. Also, bicycles may use the Highway 1 Trail described above. On the other study streets, bicycles must share the road with other vehicles.

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES

The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides local bus service in San Mateo County and regional service to the City and County of San Francisco. Two bus lines, Route 17 and Route 294, operate within Half Moon Bay. Both routes stop near the project site.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-100 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Route 17 provides local service between Seton Medical Center Coastside in Moss Beach and Miramontes/Maidenhair Walk in Half Moon Bay. There are ten round trips every weekday, running between 6:20 AM and 7:00 PM, including limited runs to the unincorporated communities of San Gregorio and Pescadero to the south. On Saturdays, there are six round trips at 1.5- to 2-hour headways between Seton Medical Center Coastside in Moss Beach and Miramontes/Maidenhair Walk in Half Moon Bay, with service beginning at 8:30 AM and ending around 5:00 PM. There is no San Gregorio or Pescadero service on Saturdays.

Route 294 provides service during weekdays between the Hillsdale Caltrain station in the City of San Mateo and the cities of Pacifica and Half Moon Bay. Weekday runs are at approximately 1.5-hour headways between 5:40 AM and 6:00 PM. On weekends, the service is local only between Pacifica and Half Moon Bay, with 2-hour Saturday headways between 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM, and three Sunday runs at approximately 10:40 AM, 1:40 PM, and 4:40 PM.

EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

The existing level of service (LOS) at each study intersection is summarized in Table 4.16-1. Based on the City of Half Moon Bay standards, all of the signalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better, and all of the unsignalized study intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic.

TABLE 4.16-1 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

Traffic Average Intersection Peak Hour Count Date LOS Control Delay AM 3/30/2011 27.3 C Highway 1/SR 92 Signal PM 3/30/2011 35.4 D AM 9/7/2011 25.2 C Highway 1/Main Street Signal PM 9/7/2011 32.9 C AM 3/30/2011 27.8 C SR 92/Main Street Signal PM 3/30/2011 25.8 C

All-Way AM 9/7/2011 7.0 A Church Street/Mill Street Stop PM 9/7/2011 7.2 A

All-Way AM 9/7/2011 8.6 A Main Street/Mill Street Stop PM 9/7/2011 10.6 B

All-Way AM 9/7/2011 9.3 A Church Street/Kelly Street Stop PM 9/7/2011 9.3 A AM 9/7/2011 38.0 D Highway 1/Kelly Street Signal PM 9/7/2011 36.7 D Source: Hexagon 2011

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-101 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

OBSERVED EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Weekday traffic conditions were observed in the field during the AM peak commute period (7:00–9:00 AM) and during the PM peak commute period (4:00–6:00 PM) to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated LOS. The purpose of this effort was to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to LOS and to identify any locations where the LOS analysis does not accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions.

Field observations revealed that overall the study intersections operate well, and the AM and PM peak-hour LOS calculations accurately reflect existing conditions. However, field operations did reveal the following:

Church Street and Kelly Street

The intersection of Church Street and Kelly Street experiences momentary congestion from vehicles and pedestrians from the Manuel F. Cunha Intermediate School that serves grades 6 through 8 and is located in the southwest corner of the intersection. This intersection has an all- way stop control and has pedestrian crossings on all four legs. The combination of these two factors resulted in long delays for vehicles at the intersection for a duration of approximately 15 minutes before the start of school and after school dismissal. This is typical for an intersection that is located in close proximity to a school. During other times of the day, this intersection was observed to have very low traffic volume and no operational problems.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

LOCAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (1993)

City of Half Moon Bay Municipal Code

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

METHODOLOGY

Transportation Network Assumptions

It is assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under project conditions, including roadways and intersection lane configurations, would be the same as that described under Setting above.

At the direction of the City of Half Moon Bay, it was assumed in this analysis that the transportation network under cumulative conditions would be the same as the existing transportation network.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-102 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Project Trip Estimates

The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation

Through empirical research, data have been collected that quantify the amount of traffic produced by common land uses. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied to help predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of traffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development. The standard AM and PM peak-hour trip generation rates for general office (ITE 710), specialty retail center (ITE 820), single-family detached housing (ITE 210), and residential condominium/townhouse (ITE 230) published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, Eighth Edition (2008) were used to derive project trip estimates for the AM and PM peak hours on a typical weekday.

Applicable Trip Reductions

Trip generation for retail is typically adjusted to account for pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips that are already on the adjacent roadways (and therefore would already be counted in the background traffic volumes) but would turn into the site while passing by. Pass-by trips are not actually generated by the retail development but are already part of the ambient traffic levels. Standard trip generation rates typically include pass-by trips. Thus, the driveway trip rates were adjusted to incorporate pass-by trip reduction during the AM and PM peak hours.

The project trip estimates are presented in Table 4.16-2. As shown, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 20 trips during the AM peak hour and 36 gross trips during the PM peak hour. After accounting for pass-by trips, which apply to the retail uses, the project would result in 32 net new trips during the PM peak hour of traffic on a typical weekday.

Trip Distribution

The trip distribution pattern for the proposed project was estimated based on existing traffic patterns and the locations of complementary land uses. Figure 4.16-1 shows the trip distribution pattern for the proposed project.

Trip Assignment

The peak-hour trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distribution patterns and proposed project access via Highway 1 and Church Street.

The project peak-hour net vehicle trips are also shown graphically on Figure 4.16-1.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-103 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

TABLE 4.16-2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Size Rate Total Rate Total In Out In Out Trips Trips Proposed Office General Office Building 5.000 1.55 7 1 8 1.49 1 6 7 (ITE 710) Proposed Retail Specialty Retail Center 5.000 0 0 0 0 2.71 6 8 14 (ITE 820) Pass-By Trip Reduction1 -- -- 0 0 0 -- (2) (2) (4) (25%) Net Retail -- -- 0 0 0 -- 4 6 10 Proposed Residential Single-Family Detached 10 D.U. 0.75 2 6 8 1.01 6 4 10 Housing (ITE 210) Residential Condominium/Townhouse 10 D.U. 0.44 1 3 4 0.52 3 2 5 (ITE 230) Net Residential -- -- 3 9 12 -- 10 5 15 Net Project Trips -- -- 10 10 20 -- 15 17 32 1 Pass-by trip reduction for a shopping center is 34% based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Based on engineering judgment, the pass- by trip reduction for a specialty retail center was assumed to be 25%. KSF = Thousand Square Feet, D.U. = Dwelling Unit Source: Hexagon 2011 a–b) Less Than Significant Impact

Existing Plus Project Impacts

Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes

Projected peak-hour traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding the traffic generated by the proposed project to existing volumes. Existing plus project conditions were evaluated relative to existing conditions in order to determine potential near-term project impacts. Existing plus project traffic volumes are shown graphically in Figure 4.16-2.

Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service

Project trips were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes. The existing plus project traffic volumes were input into the TRAFFIX software to determine intersection level of service under existing plus project conditions. Intersection LOS was evaluated against the City of Half Moon Bay significance impact criteria. The results of the intersection LOS analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-3. The results show that none of the study intersections would

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-104 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

operate worse than the City standard; therefore, the project would have less than significant impacts to LOS at study intersections.

Cumulative Plus Project

Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Volumes

Cumulative traffic volumes at the study intersections were obtained from the Cabrillo Corners Mixed-Use Development Traffic Impact Study that was prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants in February 2008. The cumulative volumes were developed using existing turning movement counts and a calculated growth factor estimated from projections in the City of Half Moon Bay‘s 1992 General Plan Circulation Element. Based on these projections, the traffic volumes at study intersections along Highway 1 and State Route 92 are expected to increase by approximately 2 percent per year over 20 years. The project traffic volumes were added to the cumulative base traffic volumes to represent cumulative plus project conditions. The cumulative plus project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4.16-3.

Intersection Levels of Service Under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions

The results of the intersection LOS analysis under cumulative plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-3. The results show that, based on City of Half Moon Bay standards, all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under cumulative plus project conditions. The project is not expected to have any significant cumulative impacts at any of the study intersections, and this impact would be less than significant.

Although no significant operational impacts would result from the project, it should be noted that any proposal to provide direct access to Highway 1 will require consultation with Caltrans and an encroachment permit for any improvements within the state right- of-way. Caltrans may require additional analysis for their purposes outside of the City‘s CEQA review process to assess access design, driveway spacing, or other factors.

TABLE 4.16-3 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

Cumulative Existing Existing Plus Project Plus Project Traffic Peak Count Intersection Incr. Incr. Control Hour Date Avg Avg Avg LOS LOS in Crit in Crit LOS Delay Delay Delay Delay V/C AM 3/30/2011 27.3 C 27.3 C 0.0 0.000 31.3 C Hwy 1/SR 92 Signal PM 3/30/2011 35.4 D 35.5 D 0.0 0.002 37.4 D

Hwy 1/Main AM 9/7/2011 25.2 C 25.1 C 0.0 0.001 25.7 C Signal Street PM 9/7/2011 32.9 C 32.9 C 0.0 0.002 40.0 D

SR 92/Main AM 3/30/2011 27.8 C 28.0 C 0.3 0.004 36.8 D Signal Street PM 3/30/2011 25.8 C 26.0 C 0.1 0.004 29.8 C

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-105 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Cumulative Existing Existing Plus Project Plus Project Traffic Peak Count Intersection Incr. Incr. Control Hour Date Avg Avg Avg LOS LOS in Crit in Crit LOS Delay Delay Delay Delay V/C

Church Street/ All-Way AM 9/7/2011 7.0 A 7.0 A 0.0 0.001 7.0 A Mill Street Stop PM 9/7/2011 7.2 A 7.2 A 0.0 0.006 7.2 A

Main Street/ All-Way AM 9/7/2011 8.6 A 8.7 A 0.0 0.002 10.9 B Mill Street Stop PM 9/7/2011 10.6 B 10.7 B 0.1 0.009 18.9 C

Church Street/ All-Way AM 9/7/2011 9.3 A 9.4 A 0.0 0.003 10.3 B Kelly Street Stop PM 9/7/2011 9.3 A 9.3 A 0.0 0.004 9.7 A

SR 1/Kelly AM 9/7/2011 38.0 D 38.4 D 0.5 0.006 43.1 D Signal Street PM 9/7/2011 36.7 D 36.8 D 0.2 0.003 38.2 D Source: Hexagon 2011 c) No Impact. The closest airport to the project site is the Half Moon Bay Airport, which is located over 4 miles to the northwest. The project site is not located within the Half Moon Bay Airport Land Use Plan (San Mateo County ALUC 1995, p. III-8). In addition, the project proposes the development of residential and retail commercial uses that would be limited by the C-D zoning district development standards to a maximum height of 36 feet or three stories (Municipal Code Section 18.07.040). Such uses would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. No impact will occur. d) No Impact. The project proposes the development of residential and retail commercial uses that would be compatible with the surrounding urban development. There are no hazardous design features included in the proposed project. Therefore, no impact will occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently accessible to emergency responders via Church Street. The project includes a private road to provide access to both the residential and commercial lots, with an emergency access gate on the private road. As such, adequate emergency access would be provided and impacts would be less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-106 T:\_CS\Work\Half Moon Bay, City of\320 Church Steet Tentative Map\Figures Source: HexagonTransportationConsultants, Inc. NOT TOSCALE Project TripDistribution Patterns Figure 4.16-1

T:\_CS\Work\Half Moon Bay, City of\320 Church Steet Tentative Map\Figures Source: HexagonTransportationConsultants, Inc. NOT TOSCALE Existing PlusProjectTraf Figure 4.16-2 ﬁ c Volumes c

T:\_CS\Work\Half Moon Bay, City of\320 Church Steet Tentative Map\Figures Source: HexagonTransportationConsultants, Inc. NOT TOSCALE Cumulative PlusProject Traf Figure 4.16-3 ﬁ c Volumes c

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS f) Less Than Significant Impact

Pedestrian and Bicycle Trips

The proposed project is expected to generate some pedestrian and bicycle trips. Some pedestrians may wish to walk to Cunha Intermediate School or Hatch Elementary School. Sidewalks are available to both locations. Pedestrians who wish to get to the west side of Highway 1 would use the sidewalk on Church Street to get to Kelly Avenue and cross Highway 1 on the south leg of the intersection of Highway 1 and Kelly Avenue. Pedestrians also may wish to walk to downtown Half Moon Bay. Sidewalks connect the project site to the downtown. The project would generate very little bicycle traffic. The local roads in the area do not have bike lanes but generally carry low traffic volume and low speeds, so they are conducive to bike travel. An exception is Highway 1 between State Route 92 and Kelly Avenue. There are no existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities on Highway 1 on that section of roadway. A bike route runs along Pilarcitos Avenue, west of and parallel to Highway 1. The project by itself does not generate the need for sidewalk or bicycle facilities on Highway 1. Therefore, this impact would be considered to be less than significant.

Transit Usage

Although no deduction for transit usage was applied to the estimated vehicular trip generation for the project, there is likely to be some transit use by residents because of the close proximity of bus stops to the project site. Assuming a transit mode share of 5 percent, the new development would add one or two new transit trips during each of the AM and PM peak hours. It is expected that these additional riders could be accommodated by the existing transit service. Therefore, this impact would be considered to be less than significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-113 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes

and regulations related to solid waste?

SETTING

WATER SERVICE

The Coastside County Water District (CCWD) provides water service to the City of Half Moon Bay as well as to part of the unincorporated area of San Mateo County including Miramar, Princeton-by-the-Sea, and El Granada. The CCWD‘s service area encompasses approximately 14 square miles and serves nearly 20,000 people. Approximately 61 percent of CCWD customers are residential water users, floriculture accounts for another 13 percent of the total water use, and the remaining 26 percent of CCWD customers are commercial (CCWD 2011). Water Supply

The CCWD has four water supply sources: Pilarcitos Lake, Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir, Pilarcitos Well Field, and the Denniston Project. The first two sources are owned and operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); the latter two are owned and operated by the CCWD. The average annual yield from these four sources is approximately 840 million gallons. Approximately 29 percent of the CCWD‘s water supply is produced locally from both wells and surface water, and the remaining 71 percent is purchased from the SFPUC.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-114 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Water Supply Infrastructure

The CCWD water supply system consists of the following (CCWD 2010):

Pilarcitos Wells. Five infiltration wells in the Pilarcitos Canyon, upstream of State Route 92. Operation is limited by a state-issued water rights license for the period of November 1 through March 31 of each year; pumping is limited to a rate of 673 gallons per minute (gpm) and annual production to 117 million gallons. Because production depends on infiltration from Pilarcitos Creek stream flow, yield is extremely low during drought years. Normal year supplies from the wells are anticipated to be 48 to 50 million gallons per year (MG/Y) or approximately 150 acre-feet per year (AF/Y).

Denniston Project. Consists of Denniston Creek surface water stream diversion and Denniston Well Field. Surface water diversion from the creek is limited by a state water rights permit to no more than 4 cubic feet per second annually. Well field includes nine groundwater wells located east of the Half Moon Bay Airport. Wells augment the stream diversions and are not pumped when stream diversions are not available.

Denniston and Nunes Water Treatment Plants.

100 Miles of Transmission/Distribution Pipeline. Distribution system includes 3 pressure zones, 5 pump stations, 500 hydrants, and 52 miles of water mains.

11 Treated Water Storage Tanks. Combined storage capacity of 8.1 million gallons.

WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) is a public agency, operating under a joint powers agreement that provides wastewater treatment services to Half Moon Bay, the Granada Sanitary District, and the Montara Water and Sanitary District. SAM also provides contract system maintenance service for member agencies. The City is a member of SAM, owns the wastewater collection system within the city, and manages the delivery of solid waste collection services through a franchise agreement. The wastewater services are funded via a sewer enterprise fund.

SAM owns and operates the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Treatment Plant at 1000 N. Cabrillo Highway in Half Moon Bay. The treatment plant is permitted for 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) in average dry weather flow. Currently, SAM‘s average dry weather flow is 1.7 million gallons per day. Treatment process includes primary sedimentation, activated sludge, secondary clarification, disinfection, and anaerobic sludge digestion. The remaining biosolids are removed and buried in landfill. The City‘s collection system has 34.48 miles of sewer line and three lift stations.

SOLID WASTE

The City of Half Moon Bay currently contracts for solid waste services with Allied Waste (San Mateo County LAFCO 2008).

Solid waste generated in Half Moon Bay is taken to a variety of landfills. Table 4.17-1 shows landfills used by the City, as well as the permitted and remaining capacities of those landfills. As shown, the majority of the landfills serving Half Moon Bay have over 50 percent remaining capacity (CalRecycle 2011).

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-115 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

TABLE 4.17-1 DISPOSAL FACILITIES USED BY HALF MOON BAY AND THEIR CAPACITIES

Total Estimated Total Estimated Capacity Used Remaining Estimated Capacity Permitted Facility Capacity Cubic Yards Percentage Cubic Yards Percentage (in cubic yards) Altamont Landfill & Resource 62,000,000 16,280,000 26.3% 45,720,000 73.7% Recovery (01-AA-0009) Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Not Available Landfill (19-AA-0013) Bakersfield Metropolitan 53,000,000 18,005,873 34% 34,994,127 66% (Bena) SLF (15-AA-0273) Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill 28,600,000 14,000,000 49% 14,600,000 51% (43-AN-0015) Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill 37,900,000 -6,746,148 -17.8% 44,646,148 117.8% (41-AA-0002) Recology Hay Road 37,000,000 6,567,000 17.7% 30,433,000 82.3% (48-AA-0002) Zanker Material Processing 540,100 0 0% 540,100 100% Facility (43-AN-0001) Zanker Road Class III Landfill 1,300,000 600,000 46.2% 700,000 53.8% (43-AN-0007)

Source: CalRecycle 2011

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Urban Water Management Planning Act

Section 10910 et seq. of the Water Code

California Government Code Section 66473.7

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act

Waste Discharge Requirements Program

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-116 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

California Integrated Waste Management Act/AB 939 (Public Resources Code, Sections 42900–42927)

LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Draft 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES a & e) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of ten single-family units, two multi-family structures with up to five units each (total of ten multi-family units), 10,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, a private road, and associated infrastructure improvements on the project site. Based on the city‘s average household size of 2.78 persons per household, these improvements will directly induce growth of 20 housing units and approximately 55.6 persons (2.78 persons per household x 20 units = 55.6 persons). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for wastewater services provided by SAM and the City of Half Moon Bay.

Increases in demand for wastewater service can result in the exceedance of the wastewater treatment plant‘s wastewater treatment requirements, as well as the need for new wastewater treatment and collection/conveyance facilities or expansion of existing facilities. As stated in the Setting discussion above, wastewater from the City of Half Moon Bay is treated at the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Treatment Plant. The treatment plant is permitted for 4.0 mgd average dry weather flow and currently has an average dry weather flow of 1.7 mgd. Based on these figures, the treatment plant is operating at less than half of design capacity and would have adequate capacity to accept effluent from the proposed project.

The proposed project is located in an urbanized area that is currently served by utility infrastructure; existing infrastructure could be extended to the project site with minimal environmental impact. The proposed project would connect to the City‘s existing sewer system by extension of the existing sewer main located in Church Street. Therefore, adequate sewer collection facilities would be available to serve the proposed project.

Given that adequate wastewater treatment and collection/conveyance infrastructure and capacity would be provided to the project from existing SAM and City infrastructure as well as proposed on-site infrastructure, the proposed project would not be expected to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be considered less than significant. b–c) Less Than Significant Impact. As described under a & e) above and d) below, as well as in Subsection 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is located in an existing urban area with established water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water, wastewater treatment, or storm drain facilities beyond what has been planned for the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-117 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS d) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project will require water supplies from the CCWD. According to the Coastside County Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the CCWD‘s normal year supplies are sufficient to meet projected normal year demands through 2035. However, the CCWD‘s water supplies (particularly local water supplies) are subject to significantly reduced availability in dry years. Therefore, in single dry years and multiple dry years, the CCWD will need to implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan to reduce customer demands. With demand reduction and based on the anticipated reliability of the CCWD‘s water supplies during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, the CCWD anticipates having adequate water supplies to meet projected demands during hydrologic conditions through 2035 (CCWD 2010). As discussed in Subsection 4.13, Population and Housing, the population and housing growth resulting from the proposed project does not exceed planned growth in the city; therefore, the proposed project would not exceed demand projections identified in the Coastside County Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

In addition, the project will be required to comply with Chapters 13.04 (Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations) and 13.05 (Indoor Water Use Efficiency Regulations) of the City‘s Municipal Code. These regulations require that water efficiency standards be met by indoor water fixtures (toilets, showers, faucets, clothes washers, etc.) as well as outdoor landscaping. These regulations will minimize water demand associated with the project.

For these reasons, the impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant. f–g) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would receive solid waste service from Allied Waste. All of the landfills serving the City have over 50 percent remaining capacity. A review of contract and recent contract amendment language indicates that Allied Waste is directly responsible for waste stream diversion. Consequently the City does not currently have to consider issues related to landfill or other solid waste infrastructure. Given these terms and conditions, the City is effectively abrogated from considering solid waste infrastructure issues such as those related to landfill use, monitoring, etc. (San Mateo County LAFCO 2008). The project would be required to comply with applicable solid waste regulations. Therefore, solid waste impacts are considered less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-118 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project: a) 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? b) 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) Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION

The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The reader is directed to Subsection 4.4, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND for a detailed discussion on potential project impacts to biological resources. The reader is also referred to Subsection 4.5, Cultural Resources, for a detailed discussion of potential project impacts on cultural and historical resources. Based on evaluations and discussions contained in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project has a very limited potential to incrementally degrade the quality of the environment. As a result, the proposed project would not significantly affect the environment. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would have impacts that are individually limited to a less than significant level with mitigation measures but that are not cumulatively considerable. No cumulative environmental impacts have been identified in association with the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant impact level. Given that the proposed project‘s impacts are less than significant with mitigation measures identified, cumulative impacts are also not foreseen to be significant.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-119 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As determined in the various sections of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, with implementation of the mitigation measures provided, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental effects and would not adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, with mitigation, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 4.0-120

5.0 REFERENCES

REFERENCES

ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 1995. Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Half Moon Bay.

———. 2011. ―Earthquake and Hazards Program.‖ Accessed October 17. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/.

Acacia CE (Acacia Consultants & Engineers, Inc.). 2011a. Geotechnical Feasibility Study.

———. 2011b. Modified Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Report.

———. 2011c. Preliminary Drainage Study.

ARS (Archaeological Resource Service). 2011. A Cultural Resources Evaluation of 320 Church Street, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California (APNS 056-150-010 & 056-150-120). Petaluma, CA.

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.

———. 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.

California Climate Action Registry. 2009. California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol Version 3.1.

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2011. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/. Accessed November 30, 2011.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences).

———. 2009. ―Traffic and Vehicle Data Systems Unit – 2009 All Traffic Volumes on California State Highway System.‖ http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2009all/2009TrafficVolumes.htm.

———. 2011. ―California Scenic Highway Program.‖ Accessed May 26. http://www.dot.ca.gov /hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2011. ―Health Effects.‖ Accessed November 7. http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2004. Climate Change Emissions Control Regulations.

———. 2005. Land Use and Air Quality Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

———. 2010a. ―Ambient Air Quality Standards.‖ Accessed October 5, 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.

———. 2010b. ―California Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2000 to 2008.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.

CCWD (Coastside County Water District). 2010. Coastside County Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0-1 5.0 REFERENCES

———. 2011. Accessed June 6. http://www.coastsidewater.org/.

CDE (California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit). 2011. Dataquest. Accessed October 19. http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2000. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities.

———. 2011a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Rarefind Version 3.1.1. Commercial Version – Dated June 4, 2011.

———. 2011b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB): QuickViewer. Sacramento: Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, CDFG. Accessed June 13. http://www.dfg.ca.gov /whdab/html/quick_viewer_launch.html.

CFPD (Coastside Fire Protection District). 2009. Coastside Fire Protection District Annual Community Report.

CGS (California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey). 2009. ―Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Half Moon Bay Quadrangle.‖ http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/San Mateo/Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_HalfMoonBay_Quad_SanMateo.pdf.

———. 2011. ―Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones.‖ Accessed June 6. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx.

City of Half Moon Bay. 1993. City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program.

———. 1995. Half Moon Bay Downtown Specific Plan.

———. 2010. Housing Element Background Report.

———. 2011. Annex to 2010 Association of Bay Area Governments Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Taming Natural Disasters.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2011. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-11a). Sacramento: CNPS. Accessed June 21. http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

County of San Mateo. 1986. General Plan.

———. 2011. http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/portal/site/SMC. Accessed November 30, 2011.

DAPTF (Declining Amphibian Task Force). 2011. The Declining Amphibian Task Force Fieldwork Code of Practice. Accessed August 23. http://www.fws.gov/ventura/species_information /protocols_guidelines/docs/DAFTA.pdf.

DOC (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection). 2004. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento.

———. 2008a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Table A-32, San Mateo County 2006-08 Land Use Conversion. Sacramento.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 5.0-2 5.0 REFERENCES

———. 2008b. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2008. Sacramento.

———. 2011. ―Williamson Act Program.‖ Accessed November 30, 2011. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/Pages/Index.aspx

DOF (California Department of Finance). 2011a. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2010 and 2011. Sacramento.

———. 2011b. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001–2010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts. Sacramento.

———. 2011c. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010– 2011, with 2010 Benchmark. Sacramento.

DOSD (California Division of Safety of Dams). 2010. ―Dams Within the Jurisdiction of the State of California.‖ http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/Jurisdictional2010.pdf.

EFCTC (European Fluorocarbons Technical Committee). 2003. ―Fluorocarbons and Sulphur Hexafluoride: Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) Fact Sheet.‖ http://www.fluorocarbons.org/en/info /brochures/ fact_10.html.

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2001. ―Retail and Service Buildings.‖ Last modified January 2011. Accessed November 7, 2011. http://www.eia.gov/emeu /consumptionbriefs/cbecs/pbawebsite/retailserv/retserv_howmanyempl.htm.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines.

Gardali, Thomas, and Jules Evens. 2008. ―San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa).‖ In Shuford and Gardali 2008.

Grenfell, William E., Jr. 1988a. ―Montane Riparian.‖ In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988.

———. 1988b. ―Riverine.‖ In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2011. 320 Church Street Mixed Use Development, Half Moon Bay, CA, Transportation Impact Analysis (Draft Report). San Jose, CA.

Kie, J. G. 2005. ―Annual Grassland.‖ In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988.

Leet, William S., Christopher M. Dewees, Richard Klingbeil, and Eric J. Larson. 2001. California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Sacramento: State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

Mayer, Kenneth E., and William F. Laudenslayer Jr., eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. Sacramento: State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

McBride, Joe R., and Chris Reid. 1988. ―Urban.‖ In Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988.

McEwen, Dennis R. 2001. ―Steelhead Rainbow Trout.‖ In Leet et al. 2001.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0-3 5.0 REFERENCES

Moyle, Peter B., Ronald F. Yoshiyama, Jack E. Williams, and Eric D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Sacramento: State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NFWSC-66: Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead. Seattle: US Department of Commerce: NOAA: National Marine Fisheries Service.

NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service). 2000. ―Climate Information for San Mateo County in the State of California.‖ Accessed August 23, 2011. http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/cgibin/climchoice.pl?county=06081&state=ca.

PMC. 2011. 320 Church Street, Biological Resource Assessment.

PWA (Philip Williams and Associates Ltd.). 2008. Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plan.

Reid, Fiona A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

San Francisco Bay RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2009. ―Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order R2-2009-0074.‖ Accessed August 23, 2011. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders /2009/R2-2009- 0074.pdf.

San Mateo County ALUC (Airport Land Use Commission). 1995. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.

San Mateo County LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission). 2008. Municipal Service Review of the City of Half Moon Bay and Unincorporated Midcoast.

Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Camarillo, CA: Western Field Ornithologists, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game.

Sibley, David Allen. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. New York: Knopf.

SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2003. ―Stormwater Management Plan 2004–2010.‖ Accessed August 23, 2011. http://www.flowstobay.org /documents/homepage/about/SWMPJan.pdf.

Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3rd ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1997. Ecological Subregions of California. Prepared by U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.

320 Church Street Project City of Half Moon Bay Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2011 5.0-4 5.0 REFERENCES

———. 2010a. ―Nitrous Oxide.‖ http://www.epa.gov /nitrousoxide/scientific.html.

———. 2010b. ―High Global Warming Potential Gases.‖ http://epa.gov/highgwp/.

———. 2011a. ―Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide.‖ http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html.

———. 2011b. ―Methane.‖ http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 1985. ―Recovery Plan for the San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia).‖ Portland, OR: USFWS. Accessed August 23, 2011. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/850911.pdf.

———. 2002. ―Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii).‖ Portland, OR: USFWS. Accessed August 23, 2011. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/020528.pdf.

———. 2011a. ―Species List for Woodside, Half Moon Bay, San Gregorio, La Honda, Montara Mountain, and San Mateo 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles.‖ Document number 110613023622. Accessed June 13. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento /es/spp_list.htm.

———. 2011b. Critical Habitat Data Portal. Electronic online mapping program accessed online June 13, 2011. http://crithab.fws.gov/.

City of Half Moon Bay 320 Church Street Project December 2011 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0-5