Initial Study 99/00 (6.0)

Transcription

City of Pismo Beach
Community Development Department, Planning Division
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Draft Initial Study of Environmental Impact
I. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FORM
1a.
Project No. P12-000077
1b.
Project Title: Shore Cliff Lodge Shoreline Improvement project
2.
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
3.
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Scot Graham, Senior Planner, (805) 773-7088
4.
Project Location:
The project site is located along the bluff top in Pismo Beach at 2555 Price Street, between the Mattie Road/Hwy 101
underpass and the Highway 101 exit (Exit 191 B) at Price Street.
5.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Martin Resort’s
(Noreen Martin)
PO Box 12060
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6.
General Plan Designation:
The project site is located in the Motel Planning District (Planning Area J) on property designated Resort Commercial.
7.
Zoning:
The proposed project site is zoned Hotel Motel and Visitor Serving (R-4).
Project Name: Shore Cliff Lodge Shoreline Improvement Project
Date: April
2014
1
Initial Environmental Study
Site Location Map Shore Cliff Lodge
FO
O
L
IL
TH
MA
TT
IE
E
FW
Y
RA
M
FW
YR
P
AM
P
101
EL
C
US
10
1
AM
IN
EL
C
OR
AM
IN
O
EA
L
RE
AL
FW
Y
RA
MP
HA
RB
OR
OC
E
AN
FR
AN
WI
KL
LM
IN
AR
US
VIE
W
PR
IC
Project location
0
250
500
1,000 Feet
±
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
8.
Description of the Project:
The Shore Cliff Lodge is a 100 unit hotel located at 2555 Price Street. The shoreline improvement
project proposes stabilization of the bluffs seaward of the lodge that are subject to continuing erosion that if
allowed to continue will jeopardize the safety and structural integrity of existing public access structures, the
parking lot and hotel building. There are four (4) locations where improvements are proposed. The locations
and proposed improvements are described below and noted on the plans as areas 8, 9, 10, & 11 (see Exhibit 1).
Location 8 – Upper bluff where existing drilled piers have become exposed. Area 8 shown in Exhibit 1
refers to a section of the upper bluff where existing drilled piers have become exposed threatening additional
loss of upper bluff and eventual risk to existing coastal walkway, adjacent parking lot and the western wing of the
existing two story Shore Cliff Lodge hotel building. There are approximately fifteen (15) drilled piers along the
bluff edge with an additional eleven (11) piers located landward and connected by grade beams creating a drilled
pier deadman system.
Erosion within the terrace deposit has resulted in substantial exposure of the existing drilled pier system
and undermining of the pedestrian walkway. Also, the erosion taking place at the south end of the wall threatens
to flank the pier system.
The proposed solution to the current erosion issue involves construction of tied back wall seaward of
the existing drilled pier alignment. The proposed wall would be colored and textured to match the existing bluff
face and would have an approximate length of 220 feet and height ranging from 28 to 47 feet. The wall would be
restrained by high capacity, post grouted, post tensioned ground anchors. The wall would extend down to the
top of the existing lower bluff wall to provide continuous protection along this section of bluff.
Location 9 – Localized upper bluff failure along the eastern edge of the existing peninsula.
Area 9
consists of a localized upper bluff failure along the eastern edge of the peninsula located south of the hotel lobby.
The failure measures approximately 15 to 20 wide and 15 to 20 feet deep, within a failure scarp that has
encroached into or adjacent to a public access asphalt path that follows around the perimeter of the bluff-top
peninsula.
To prevent additional bluff top failure and increased undermining of the existing bluff top path, the
proposal includes the use of a Geoweb product that allows use of onsite soil to rebuild the failed portion of the
slope. Because the Geoweb system does utilize soil in the bluff stabilization solution, the rebuilt slope can be
revegetated to blend in with the surrounding bluff to create a more naturalized appearance.
Location 10 – Upper bluff where existing drilled piers have become exposed. This area features an
upper bluff drilled pier system similar to that noted under area 8 above. The drilled pier system has become
exposed due to erosion of the bluff, although the exposure is less than in location 8. The piers provide support
for a public walkway along the bluff top, the eastern end of the hotel and the swimming pool.
The proposed solution is to construct a tied back wall in just the area where the piers are exposed,
instead of along the entire bluff face where the drilled pier system is located. The wall would be a tied back wall
that is colored and sculpted to match the existing bluff face.
Location 11 – Upper bluff wall in location of existing drilled pier system. This portion of the project
involves the stabilization of a drilled pier wall similar to the improvements proposed for areas 8 & 10. The
existing drilled pier system in this location measures 65-feet in length, was constructed in 1995 and provides
Date: April
2014
2
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
support for a public walkway and the southeastern portion of the hotel building. The existing drilled pier wall
appears to be in good condition with the exception of some localized areas of erosion that require attention.
The solution for area 11 involves the construction of a tied back wall in just the areas where erosion is
taking place and where the piers are exposed similar to the solution for area 10. The wall will be colored and
textured to blend with the existing bluff face.
9.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Uses in the project area consist of other hotel/motels, a restaurant and residential multifamily and single family
structures.
10.
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
•
11.
The project is within the Coastal Zone, and is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact
that is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Agriculture Resources
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Recreation
Air Quality
Land Use and Planning
Transportation and Traffic
Biological Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Cultural Resources
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Geology and Soils
Population and Housing
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and
wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis
waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
12.
Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
Date: April
2014
3
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
applicant in the form of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
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 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
________________________________
For
Date: April
2014
4
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Sources
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
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c)
d)
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
8, 9 , 10,
16
X
8, 9, 10,
16
X
8, 9, 10,
16
X
9, 9, 10,
16
No
Impact
X
Impact Discussion:
1a-d.
The proposed improvements relate to protection of existing public access paths, walkways and associated features. Any
improvement involving placement of a concrete wall structure will be textured and colored to match the existing bluff face,
which will serve to limit the visual impact of the proposed improvements while still allowing public access.
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation required.
2.
AGRICULTURE
RESOURCES.
In
determining
whether
impacts
to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Date: April, 2014
5
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
a)
b)
c)
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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
1, 6, 8
X
1, 6, 8
X
1, 6, 8
X
Impact Discussion:
2a-c. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use nor is the site located on or adjacent to existing farmland.
Mitigation Measure
None required
3.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b)
c)
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non- attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
1,2,3,8,10
, 11
X
1,2,3,8,
10, 11
X
1,2,3,8,
10, 11
X
Date: April, 2014
6
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
d)
e)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
1,2,3,8,
10, 11
X
1,2,3,8,
10, 11
X
Impact Discussion:
San Luis Obispo County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin, which also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
The proposed project is subject to the San Luis Obispo County 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP). Project construction activities could result
in temporary fugitive dust emissions, a potentially significant impact. The CAP requires implementation of stationary source control
measure R-21 regarding fugitive emissions (see the following Mitigation Discussion for fugitive dust emissions). The project does not
entail any other activity that could conflict with or obstruct the Clean Air Plan.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Environmental Protection Agency, San Luis
Obispo County APCD and other governmental agencies with jurisdiction are in the process of developing guidelines and thresholds
to address a project’s cumulative contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) in the South Central Coast Air Basin. Over the last few
years, a series of related legislative acts have been made relating to this issue. There are seven greenhouses gases, as follows, in
order of their global warming potential: Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Chlorofluorocarbons, Hydrofluorocarbons,
Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur hexafluoride.
According to the Baseline GHG Inventory prepared by the City (2005), the community of Pismo Beach emitted approximately 64,677
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in the baseline year 2005. The transportation sector was the largest contributor to
emissions (51.0%), producing approximately 32,971 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. Emissions from the commercial and industrial
sectors combined were the next largest contributor (22.0%), producing approximately 14,206 metric tons of CO2e. The residential
sector accounted for 21.6% of the total. Emissions from solid waste comprised 5.4% of the total, and emissions from other sources
such as agricultural equipment comprised less than 1.0%. The majority of emissions from the transportation sector were the result of
gasoline consumption in private vehicles traveling on local roads, US 101, and State highways.
3a-c.
The proposed project is subject to the San Luis Obispo County 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP). Project construction activities
could result in temporary fugitive dust emissions, a potentially significant impact. The CAP requires implementation of
stationary source control measure R-21 regarding fugitive emissions (see the following Mitigation Discussion for fugitive dust
emissions).
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for state PM10 standards. Project construction activities
Project site is in a candidate
would create a cumulative net increase of PM10 creating a significant but mitigable impact.
area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), and requires a geology study to determine if NOA is present at the project
site. If NOA is absent, an exemption will be filed with the Air Pollution Control District. If NOA is present, the project will
have to meet the requirements laid out in the ARB Toxics Control Measure (ATCM).
In addition, the project is expected to use some heavy-duty diesel equipment. The California Air Resources Board lists
diesel exhaust particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant with no identified threshold level below which there are no
significant effects for construction. Construction near public use areas is likely to affect sensitive receptors. Impacts are
considered significant but mitigable.
In order to assess GHG impacts, the APCD produced the “Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence”
publication (March 28, 2012), which addresses GHG emission thresholds for significance. According to the APCD, in the
absence of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the “Bright-Line” numeric threshold of 1,150 metric tons of CO2e per year
represents an emissions level below which a project’s contribution to global climate change would be deemed less than
“cumulatively considerable.” This threshold is equivalent to a project size of approximately 70 single-family dwelling units, or
a 70,000 square-foot office building. The subject project includes stabilization of existing retaining walls, construction of new
Date: April, 2014
7
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
retaining walls and some grading/removal of loose bluff material.
than significant.
3d-e.
Impacts related to GHG emissions are considered less
The project involves bluff stabilization through the placement of shotcrete tied back walls on the ocean side of existing drilled
pier systems along the bluff face in three locations. Also included in the project is the stabilization of an existing slope
failure through the use of a Geogrid solution.
The proposed construction work is temporary in nature and located away from populated areas.
Mitigation Measures
3A.
To mitigate fugitive dust emissions related to project construction, the following shall be implemented:
a.
b.
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased
watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should
be used whenever possible;
c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be
implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114;
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with
reclaimed water should be used where feasible;
l. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20%
opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work
may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
3B.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), which has been identified as a toxic
air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities at the site, the project
proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine in NOA is present within the area that will be
disturbed. IF NOA is not present, an exemption must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site the applicant must
comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM.
3C.
The required mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate
matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment are listed below:
•
•
•
Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle
diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
Date: April, 2014
8
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State off-Road Regulation;
Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine
standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving
alternative compliance;
All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated
queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
Electrify equipment when feasible;
Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Sources
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b)
c)
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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1, 5, 9, 10
X
1, 5, 9, 10
X
1, 5, 9, 10
No
Impact
X
Date: April, 2014
9
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
d)
e)
f)
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?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
1, 5, 9, 10
X
1
X
1
X
Impact Discussion:
4a-d.
A biological report was prepared by for the project dated April 15, 2013 by Sage Institute. The Biological Resources
Assessment included field surveys of the project area between January and March 2013 that consisted of a floristic
inventory, wildlife observations, and a habitat suitability assessment for special-status species.
The project areas are vertical or near vertical eroding bluff faces where previus bluff erosion protection drilled piers have
become exposed. All work will be conducted from the bluff top with no construction access to the rocky intertidal area
needed. No special status plants were observed and no special status wildlife species were observed using any of the
project areas. Given that the project areas are located on the terrestrial coastal bluff and do not extend down to the base of
the bluff no marine resources would be affected by the proposed project.
Potential Resource impacts are described below:
Common bird species were identified in the field surveys in the native and non-native patches of vegetation. Therefore,
st
st
project work resulting in ground disturbance and vegetation removal during bird nesting season (March 1 to August 31 )
could disrupt nesting birds. Any disruption or take of an active nest would be considered a significant impact.
4e.
There are no other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources that conflict with the project.
4f.
The project location is not under the provisions of a habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures
4A.
•
Best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented prior to and during construction activities to minimize
sedimentation into the Ocean. A site-specific erosion and sediment control plan (ESCP) will be developed for the site.
•
Hazardous materials and emergency response kits will be available on-site at all times. In the case of a hazardous
materials spill, work will stop immediately or as soon as feasible without creating a safety hazard or risk of resource
damage. All contaminated material will be removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriate facility.
Date: April, 2014
10
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
4B.
NESTING BIRDS: The proposed project has the potential to impact migratory nesting birds if construction activities occur
st
during the nesting season (March 1 to August 31st) and nests are located within or near the work area.
To protect sensitive bird species vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted
st
st
between September 1 and March 1 outside the nesting season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting
st
st
season (March 1 to August 31 ), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determined if any active
nests would be impacted by project construction. If not active nests are found then no further mitigation is required.
If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction activities, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the
establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall
be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on
the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest
would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less than significant level.
4C.
NATIVE PLAN RESTORATION: Field surveys documented the preponderance of non-native plant species and escaped
landscape cultivars colonizing the bluff face. Removal of these non-native plants would not be considered a significant
impact. However, the opportunity exists to use locally indigenous native plants from the coastal bluff scrub habitat
composition as part of the restoration and stabilization measures for the proposed project. As such, use of only native
plants from the coastal bluff scrub habitat description in the hydroseed and container stock palette shall be utilized for any
vegetation component of the project. Uses of native plants provide a habitat enhancement over current existing conditions.
Implementation of the above-mentioned measures should reduce impacts to sensitive resources within the proposed project site and
existing sensitive habitat areas to a less than significant level.
Sources
5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including
those
interred
outside
of
formal
cemeteries?
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
1, 4, 6, 8,
10
X
1, 4, 6, 8,
10
X
1, 4, 6, 8,
10
X
1, 4, 6, 8,
10
X
Date: April, 2014
11
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Impact Discussion:
5a-d.
A cultural resource inventory was prepared by Bertrando & Bertrando Consultants. The study found that the subject site is
within the boundaries of a known archaeological site and that archaeological material associated with the site extends the
length of the property including the bluff top areas where work is proposed.
Mitigation Measure:
5A.
The applicant shall contract for Archaeological monitoring of all earth disturbance activities. Monitors shall consist of both a
qualified archaeological monitor and qualified Native American monitor. Signed contracts for monitoring activities shall be
furnished to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit.
Sources
6.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
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 AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
1, 8, 10
X
ii)
Strong seismic ground shaking?
1, 8, 10
X
iii)
Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
1, 8, 10
X
iv)
Landslides?
1, 8, 10
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
1, 8, 10
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
1, 8, 10
X
Date: April, 2014
12
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
d)
e)
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?
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
1, 8, 10
X
1, 8, 10
X
6a-d
Impact Discussion: Terra Costa Consulting Group has provided both an Erosion Control Plan (dated April 5, 2013) and
Geotechnical report (dated April 5, 2013) that address both the existing geological condition and recommendations for erosion control
methods to be utilized through the construction period and post construction phases of the project.
Geologic Condition: Terra Costa Consulting conducted a field investigation of the Shore Cliff Lodge site that included two
exploratory borings, one cone penetration test and two exploratory borings on the seaward side of the Lodge. Also included in the
analysis was a slope stability analysis and research of local geological records. The aforementioned testing resulted in the
geotechnical recommendations that represent the proposed improvement that make up the project as described in the project
description above.
Field investigations and review of published geologic mapping in the area indicate that no active faults (less than 11,000 years old) or
potentially active faults (less than 125,000 years old) traverse the Pismo Beach coastal bluff in the area near Shore Cliff Lodge.
The report identifies the general average bluff retreat rate for headlands in the study area to be on the order of 4-inches per year.
The report evaluates bluff stability finding that while under a general unsaturated condition the existing slopes exhibit relatively high
factors of safety ranging from .9 to 1.2 under the static factor of safety and ranging from 0.75 to 1.0 for a seismic factor of safety.
That being said, the report goes on to state that current building codes require a facto of safety of 1.5 for new construction meaning
these bluffs are marginally stable at best and susceptible to failure, particularly under seismic events or periods of intense rainfall
where the bluffs become partially saturated. It is expected that Areas 8, 10 and 11 have higher factors of safety than indicated due to
the stabilizing presence of the existing drilled pier and grade beam system.
In addition to the results of the soils engineering report, it is important to note that according to the City Safety Element of the General
Plan, Pismo Beach is located in a seismically active area. However, no active faults are known to be present within or in the near
vicinity of Pismo Beach and surface rupture resulting from fault movement is not considered a significant problem within the City.
Additionally, the potential for landslides is considered to be negligible in rocks that underlie most of the city and its surrounding hills.
Ground shaking could occur in Pismo Beach, primarily from the San Andreas Fault, which runs generally north-south from the Bay
Area to southern California, the closest portion of which is roughly 60 miles to the east of the City. The Nacimiento Fault is
considered a secondary source of strong ground shaking but would have a negligible effect on Pismo Beach.
An earthquake of Richter Magnitude 8.0 to 8.5 can be expected from a rupture along the San Andreas Fault in the future, which
would cause considerable ground shaking and potential structural damage in Pismo Beach. Secondary seismic hazards could result
from the interaction of ground shaking with existing soil and bedrock conditions, and include liquefaction, settlement, landslides and
tsunamis or “tidal waves”. However, the proposed improvements designed and constructed to meet California Building Code (CBC)
standards for seismic zone compliance. In addition, the proposed project would require adherence to the City of Pismo Beach
General Plan policies and programs created to mitigate seismic impacts. With implementation of the CBC and City General Plan
policies, impacts related to seismic hazards are considered less than significant.
Date: April, 2014
13
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Erosion Control: the project will include clearing and grubbing of the site, removal of loose material from the bluff top and face in
the areas where improvements are proposed and planting and restoration of disturbed areas. The pre-construction and construction
period erosion and sedimentation control practice for the project include the following three parts:
•
•
•
6e.
Erosion Control
Sediment control
Materials Management
The proposed project does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures:
6A.
The recommendations of the April 5, 2013 Erosion Control Plan shall be incorporated into the project plans, including but not
limited to measures required for site preparation, grading, wall preparation, surface improvements, drainage around
improvements, and measures associated with observation and testing.
Erosion control measure may include the placement of sandbags, fiber rolls, and/or sediment fences along the limits of the
edge of work areas to prevent sediment, debris and construction waste from leaving the work area.
Post erosion and sediment control measures shall include the reestablishment of vegetation in all construction areas. The
revegetation shall be accomplished using hydroseeding (native plant mix from the coastal bluff scrub habitat) and mulch or
other surface treatments to facilitate establishment of the vegetation.
Please refer to the referenced report for a detailed discussion of required measures.
Sources
7.
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 reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1, 8
X
1, 8
X
Date: April, 2014
14
No
Impact
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
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?
For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
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?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
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?
1, 8, 12
X
1, 12
X
1,
X
1
X
1, 17
X
1, 8
X
Impact Discussion:
7a-h.
The project is not located in an area of known hazardous material contamination.
The improvements include
implementation of measures to stabilize the bluff on the ocean side of the Lodge in an effort to protect existing public access
paths, viewing areas and other improvements. Potential risk of release or public exposure is considered minimal.
The project is not within a high severity risk area for fire. No airports are nearby, and as a result the project is not within an
Airport Review area.
The project does not propose the use of hazardous materials. The project does not present a significant fire safety risk, and
future development would comply with standard fire safety requirements. The project would not conflict with any emergency
response evacuation plans or conflict with regional airport flight patterns. Impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Date: April, 2014
15
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Sources
8.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b)
c)
d)
e)
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
8, 10
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
x
8
X
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 onor off-site?
1, 8, 13,
10
X
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 onor off-site?
1, 8, 13,
10
X
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?
1, 8, 13,
10
X
1, 8, 13,
10
X
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
No
Impact
1, 8, 14,
X
Date: April, 2014
16
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
map?
h)
12, 14
Place within a 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?
1, 9, 11,
12, 14
X
1, 9, 11,
12, 14, 15
X
1, 9, 11,
12
X
Impact Discussion:
8a
The project involves bluff stabilization through construction of various walls and through minor grading.
submittal includes an erosion control plan. .
The project
8b.
The project improvements do not include uses that require additional water supply. Proposed improvements are related to
bluff stabilization only.
8c-f.
The project has a small footprint and will not appreciably increase runoff. All site drainage is addressed in the project
erosion control plan, prepared by Terra Costa Consulting and addressed earlier in this report under section 6. The project is
also required to comply with the City’s June 2010, Stormwater Management Program.
8g-l
The project does not include housing nor is it located within a flood plain.
8j.
The project improvements are related to bluff stabilization and will be located approximately 50’ to 60’ above the mean high
tide, as such the improvements are not particularly susceptible to tsunami’s as they involve bluff protection measures that are
tied into the bluff face. The potential for tsunamis or tidal waves is present throughout the community if an earthquake was to
occur. The City has adopted various building codes and development review procedures to reduce such hazards. Impacts
are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None
Sources
9.
a)
LAND USE AND PLANNING.
project:
Physically
divide
community?
an
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the
established
1, 6, 8, 16
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
Date: April, 2014
17
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
b)
c)
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?
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
1, 6, 8, 16
X
1, 6, 16
X
Impact Discussion:
9a.
The project involves Bluff stabilization measures in relation to protection of public walkway and ocean viewing areas. The
location of the improvements are located mostly on the bluff face and could not therefore divide a community.
9b.
The project does not conflict with City policies, land use plans or regulations. The project is being carried out in
conformance with the City’s 1983 Zoning Code, and 1993 General Plan/Local Coastal Program
9c.
The proposed project is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan or natural community conservation plan area.
Sources
10.
a)
b)
MINERAL RESOURCES.
project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1
X
1
X
Impact Discussion:
10a-b.
There are no known mineral resources within the vicinity of the project. The project would not result in the loss of any
mineral resources. No impacts would result from project implementation.
Date: April, 2014
18
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Sources
11.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
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?
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
1, 7,
X
1, 7,
X
1, 7,
No Impact
X
1, 7,
X
1, 7,
X
1, 7,
X
Impact Discussion:
11 a-f.
The project will generate temporary construction related noise; however, the project is required to comply with the City of
Pismo Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 9.24, General Noise Regulations. Chapter 9.24 establishes a maximum
construction/Demolition noise level standards for mobile equipment of 85 dBA and for stationary equipment of 70dBA during
the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.. Constructed related noise generation is not anticipated to generate noise impacts
beyond that allowed by the City’s noise ordinance. Construction related noise impacts are considered less than significant.
The project does not involve noise generating uses beyond that experienced during construction.
Date: April, 2014
19
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Sources
12.
a)
b)
c)
POPULATION AND HOUSING.
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would
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)?
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1, 8, 16
X
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 8, 16
X
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 8, 16
X
Impact Discussion:
12a-c. The project involves construction of bluff stabilization improvements only. The project does not include either construction of
housing or removal of existing housing. No persons will be displaced as a result of the project. No impacts would result
from project implementation.
Mitigation: None
Sources
13.
PUBLIC SERVICES.
a)
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Fire protection?
1, 8
X
Police protection?
1, 8
X
Schools?
1, 8
X
Date: April, 2014
20
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Parks?
1, 8
X
Other public facilities?
1, 8
X
Impact Discussion:
13a.
The project involves the bluff stabilization improvments. The project does not have the ability to adversely affect service
levels for police, fire, schools, parks or other facilities. The project will repair/maintain existing public walkways and
viewing areas. No impacts would result.
Mitigation: None
Sources
14.
a)
b)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
RECREATION:
Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1, 8, 16
X
1, 8, 16
X
Impact Discussion:
14a-b.
The project involves the construction of bluff stabilization improvements that will help maintain existing public access paths
and viewing areas that serve the existing Community. The project does not have the ability to adversely affect existing
recreational facilities nor does it have the ability to necessitate expansion or addition of new recreational facilities. No
impacts to recreation would result.
Mitigation: None
Date: April, 2014
21
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Sources
15.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would
the project:
Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
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?
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)
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1, 16
X
1, 16
X
1, 16
X
1, 16
X
1, 16
X
1
X
1, 16
X
Impact Discussion:
15a-g. The project involves bluff stabilization improvements related to protection of existing public access paths and view areas.
The project does not have the ability to adversely affect service levels on City Streets or the transportation network as a
whole. There is no work proposed within the adjacent Price Street right of way.
Mitigation: None
Sources
16.
Potentially
Significant
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Date: April, 2014
22
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Impact
1, 8, 16,
X
1, 8, 16,
X
1, 8, 16,
X
1, 8, 16,
X
1, 8, 16,
X
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1, 8, 16,
X
Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
1, 8, 16
X
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?
Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
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?
Impact Discussion:
16a-g. The project involves bluff stabilization improvements associated with protection of existing public access paths and viewing
areas.
The project does not involve either commercial or residential development and will not therefore generate a need for greater
water, sewer or stormwater capacity. No impacts related to water supply or stormwater drainage or County landfill facilities
are anticipated.
Mitigation: None
Sources
Potentially
Date: April, 2014
23
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
No Impact
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
17.
a)
b)
c)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Significant
Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporation
Significant
Impact
1
X
1
X
1
X
Impact Discussion:
17a.
Please refer to Section 3, Air Quality, Section 4, Biological Resources, Section 5, Cultural Resources and Section 6,
Geology and Soil Resources, for a detailed discussion of impacts to Air Quality, wildlife, habitat and, cultural resources and
botanical impacts and impacts related to site preparation for the proposed improvements. Project impacts are expected to
be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
17b.
The proposed project may have a cumulative impact on air quality due to potential dust emissions resulting from project
construction and Naturally Occurring Asbestos . Refer to mitigation measures discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, which
reduces potential impacts to less than significant.
17c.
Adverse impacts to humans are addressed throughout, and any impacts identified can be mitigated to less than significant
levels.
Date: April, 2014
24
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
18.
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one of more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D0. In this case a discussion should identify
the following items:
a)
Earlier analysis used.
None
b)
Impacts adequately addressed. (Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.)
None
c)
Mitigation measures. (For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.)
None
19.
SOURCE REFERENCES.
1.
City of Pismo Beach, CA. (November 1992). City of Pismo Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Plan Pismo Beach.
2.
Air Pollution Control District, County of San Luis Obispo. (December 2001. 2001) Clean Air Plan San Luis Obispo.
3.
San Luis Obispo County APCD. April 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for
Projects Subject to CEQA.
4.
Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, Cultural Resource Inventory of Multiple Bluff Repair and Renovation
Projects, March 31, 2014.
5.
Sage Institute, Inc, April 5, 2013. Shoreline Improvements Biological Resources Assessment, Martin Resorts Properties
Shelter Cove Lodge
6.
City of Pismo Beach 1983 Zoning Code & Associated Maps
7.
Noise Control regulations, Pismo Beach Municipal Code Section 9.24, adopted 1992.
8.
Terra Costa Consulting Group, April 5, 2013, Geotechnical Basis of Design & Alternatives Analysis, Shore Cliff Lodge
9.
Terra Costa Consulting Group, July 23, 2013, Response to Coastal Commission Staff Comments (June 23, 2013), Martin
Resorts Bluff Top California Coastal Trail System Improvement Project, Pismo Beach CA
10.
Terra Costa Consulting Group, April 5, 2013, Erosion Control Plan Shoreline Improvements, Martin Resorts Properties,
Pismo Beach CA.
11.
San Luis Obispo County APCD. March 28, 2012. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence.
12.
City Search, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Enviromapper search, April 23, 2014.
13.
City of Pismo Beach, Stormwater Management Program, June 2010
14.
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 1343G, November 16, 2012
15.
City of Pismo Beach Municipal Code, Flood Hazard Ordinance, Chapter 15.44
16.
Project Plan for Shore Cliff Lodge, Terra Costa Consulting Group, April 2013
17.
City Emergency Response Plan 2010
Date: April, 2014
25
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation Measures (Air Quality)
3A. To mitigate fugitive dust emissions related to project construction, the following shall be implemented:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased
watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should
be used whenever possible;
c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be
implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114;
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site;
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with
reclaimed water should be used where feasible;
l. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20%
opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work
may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
Mitigation Implementation/Monitoring
1. Performance standard: Dust mitigation plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Department
2. Contingency Measure: None
3. Implementation Responsibility: City
4. Implementation Schedule: Prior to submitting building plans, the above measures shall be clearly printed on all plans.
Measures to be implemented throughout construction.
5. Monitoring Method: Once, upon building plan submittal, and ongoing by the Building Inspector and Engineering Staff.
Mitigation Measure 3B: Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring
Asbestos (NOA), which has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB
Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities
at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine in NOA is present within the area
that will be disturbed. IF NOA is not present, an exemption must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site the applicant
must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM.
1. Performance standard: The applicant shall prepare a geologic study to determine if Naturally Occurring Asbestos is
present within the project site, and shall subsequently file a letter of exemption to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution
Control District or ensure compliance with ATCM requirements.
2. Contingency Measure: As determined by building official
Date: April, 2014
26
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
3.
4.
5.
Implementation Responsibility: City
Implementation Schedule: Prior to issuance of building permits
Monitoring Method: Building Department will verify submittal of Naturally occurring asbestos report.
Mitigation Measure 3C. The required mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment are listed below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle
diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines,
and comply with the State off-Road Regulation;
Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards
identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing
areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
Electrify equipment when feasible;
Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied
natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
1. Performance standard: The City shall ensure compliance with the DPM avoidance measures during site construction.
2. Contingency Measure: As determined by environmental monitor or building official
4. Implementation Schedule: throughout construction
5. Monitoring Method: Building Inspector and Project planner
Mitigation Measures (Biological Resources)
4B.
NESTING BIRDS: The proposed project has the potential to impact migratory nesting birds if construction activities occur
st
during the nesting season (March 1 to August 31st) and nests are located within or near the work area.
To protect sensitive bird species vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted
st
st
between September 1 and March 1 outside the nesting season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting
st
st
season (March 1 to August 31 ), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determined if any active
nests would be impacted by project construction. If not active nests are found then no further mitigation is required.
If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction activities, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the
establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall
be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on
the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest
would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less than significant level.
4C.
NATIVE PLAN RESTORATION: Field surveys documented the preponderance of non-native plant species and escaped
landscape cultivars colonizing the bluff face. Removal of these non-native plants would not be considered a significant
impact. However, the opportunity exists to use locally indigenous native plants from the coastal bluff scrub habitat
composition as part of the restoration and stabilization measures for the proposed project. As such, use of only native
plants from the coastal bluff scrub habitat description in the hydroseed and container stock palette shall be utilized for any
vegetation component of the project. Uses of native plants provide a habitat enhancement over current existing conditions.
Date: April, 2014
27
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
1. Performance standard: If work is to take place within bird nesting season, a contract for all Biological work identified in the
mitigation measures is to be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a Building. All applicable studies that
are to be carried out prior to construction are to be complete and follow up reports are to be submitted to the Planning
Division for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities. A project shall be identified and contact
information provided to the project planner prior to commencement of construction. A preconstruction meeting shall be held
prior to the start of work and the project biologist shall be present to review compliance with all mitigation measures. A
follow up report shall be submitted to the Planning Division detailing compliance with each of the mitigation measures.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Any areas proposed for revegetation shall utilize a native bluff scrub habitat hydroseed mix or container stock. The
revegetation plan shall include notation of the required mitigation measures. The applicant shall provide, to the Planning
Division, evidence of compliance with this requirement through submittal of receipts indicating purchase of a hydroseed mix
or container stock consistent with this requirement.
Contingency Measure: None
Implementation Responsibility: City
Implementation Schedule: Prior to submitting building plans, the above measures shall be clearly printed on all plans.
Measures to be implemented throughout construction. Receipts for purchase of Hydroseed mix and/or container stock are
to be submitted to the project planner prior to final of the project.
Monitoring Method: Once, upon building plan submittal, and again prior to issuance of final for the project improvements.
Responsibility: Project Planner
Mitigation Measures (Cultural Resources)
5A.
The applicant shall contract for Archaeological monitoring of all earth disturbance activities. Monitors shall consist of both a
qualified archaeological monitor and qualified Native American monitor. Signed contracts for monitoring activities shall be
furnished to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit.
1. Performance standard: Signed contracts for monitoring activities shall be provided to the Planning Division prior to
issuance of a Building Permit.
2. Contingency Measure: To be shown on plans prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Implementation Schedule: During construction
5. Monitoring Method: Pre-construction meeting shall be held to discuss monitoring requirements and monitors are required
to be present.
Mitigation Measure (Geology and Soils)
Mitigation Measures:
6A.
The recommendations of the April 5, 2013 Erosion Control Plan shall be incorporated into the project plans, including but not
limited to measures required for site preparation, grading, wall preparation, surface improvements, drainage around
improvements, and measures associated with observation and testing.
Date: April, 2014
28
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
Erosion control measure may include the placement of sandbags, fiber rolls, and/or sediment fences along the limits of the
edge of work areas to prevent sediment, debris and construction waste from leaving the work area.
Post erosion and sediment control measures shall include the reestablishment of vegetation in all construction areas. The
revegetation shall be accomplished using hydroseeding (native plant mix from the coastal bluff scrub habitat) and mulch or
other surface treatments to facilitate establishment of the vegetation.
Please refer to the referenced report for a detailed discussion of required measures.
1. Performance standard: Project plans shall note required elements.
2. Contingency Measure: To be shown on plans prior to issuance of building permits.
4. Implementation Schedule: During construction
5. Monitoring Method: Planting materials shall be verified prior to final by the project planner
Date: April, 2014
29
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
805) 773-4658 Fax (805) 773-4684
EXHIBIT 1
PLANS
Date: April, 2014
30

Initial Study 99/00 (6.0)

Transcription

Similar documents

Dinosaur Caves Park

February 2015 - Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce

Inviting Beach House on Georgia Straight.

June 2015 - Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce

June 2016 - Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce

June 2013 - Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce

langosta - Costa Rica Real Estate

July 2014 - Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce

March 2016 - Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce