CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2024
HYBRID MEETING (SEE NEXT PAGE)
ADCOCK COMMUNITY CENTER
535 KELLY AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
Harvey Rarback, Vice Mayor
Robert Brownstone, Councilmember
Deborah Penrose, Councilmember
Debbie Ruddock, Councilmember
7:00 PM
This agenda contains a brief description of each item to be considered. Those wishing to address the City Council on any matter not listed on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the City Council to resolve, may come forward to the podium during the Public Forum portion of the agenda and will have a maximum of three minutes to discuss their item.
Comments on City Manager Updates and Consent Calendar items should be made during the Public Forum section of the agenda. Those wishing to speak on a Business or Public Hearing matter will be called forward at the appropriate time during that item’s consideration.
Please Note: Anyone wishing to present materials to the City Council, please submit seven copies to the City Clerk.
Copies of written documentation relating to each item of business on the agenda are on file in the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall where they are available for public inspection. If requested, the agenda shall be available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132.) Information may be obtained by calling 650-726-8271.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, special assistance for participation in this meeting can be obtained by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at 650-726-8271. A 48-hour notification will enable the City to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). http://hmbcity.com/
Wi-Fi: HMB Public
Password: Recreation1
1 HYBRID MEETING PARTICIPATION PROTOCOLS
This meeting will be held in-person and via Zoom for public participation. Remote participation is provided as a supplemental way to provide public comment, but this method does not always work. The public is encouraged to attend in person to ensure full participation. Public comments may be made in-person or remotely via Zoom, and interpretation will be available. All Councilmembers and staff will participate in person. During any public comment portions, attendees may use the “raise your hand” feature and will be called upon and unmuted when it is their turn to speak. The meeting will also be streamed on Channel 27, on pacificcoast.tv, and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/cityofhalfmoonbay. Please click to join the webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87674804231 or join by phone at 669-900-9128, using Webinar ID 876-7480-4231. If joining by phone, use *9 to raise your hand, *6 to mute and unmute.
ROLL CALL / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
FUTURE LEADERS CIVICS ACADEMY GRADUATION (6:30 RECEPTION)
LIBRARY ANNUAL REPORT
MIDCOAST COMMUNITY COUNCIL UPDATE
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS OF COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
REPORT OUT FROM RECENT CLOSED SESSION MEETINGS
CITY MANAGER UPDATES TO COUNCIL
IMMIGRATION WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT
PUBLIC FORUM
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
1.A WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2024
Staff Recommendation: Accept the warrants list for the month of August 2024.
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT
1.B ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITOR’S REPORTS FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AUDIT Staff Recommendation: Accept the Required Communications and Memorandum of Internal Control reports from the Fiscal Year 2022-23 independent auditor.
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
2 2. ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
2.A APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AT 2800 CHAMPS ELYSEE BLVD, FILE NO. PDP-17-055
Staff Recommendation: Either: 1) deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution; OR 2) grant the appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution, and approve the proposed residence subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B.
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 7
ATTACHMENT 8
MEMO TO COUNCIL 10.15.24
3. RESOLUTIONS AND STAFF REPORTS
3.A MUNICIPAL ENERGY PROJECT UPDATES
Staff Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Power Purchase Agreement for the Solar Photovoltaic System at the Emergency Operations Center Parking Lot and the City Hall Parking Lot in partnership with Peninsula Clean Energy Authority should the City Manager determine that there are cost effectiveness or other community benefits as determined by the City of Half Moon Bay following participation in a collaborative procurement led by Peninsula Clean Energy.
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
3 ATTACHMENT 2
3.B SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE PROPOSED 5-YEAR INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Staff Recommendation: Adopt a resolution accepting the Sewer Authority 5-Year Infrastructure Plan (Capital Improvement Program).
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT
3.C POTENTIAL COMMUNITY PARK ON BEACHWOOD/GLENCREE PROPERTY Staff Recommendation: Receive information on potential use of the Beachwood/Glencree Property as a community park and direct staff accordingly.
STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION / POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
4 BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: October 15, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
From: Lisa Rossi, Administrative Services Director
TITLE: WARRANTS FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2024
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the warrants list for the month of August 2024.
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:
This recommendation supports the Fiscal Sustainability and Inclusive Governance Elements of the Strategic Plan.
DISCUSSION:
During this month, the City processed 5 check runs. The table below outlines each check run and their individual totals:
Check Run Date Amount
August 01 511,370
August 04 29,981
August 08 164,225
August 15 672,767
August 22 771,850
August 29 277,103
Total 2,427,298
The City processed payments related to 13 capital improvement projects, in a total amount of $767,682 These include Highway 1 Safety - North, Poplar Complete Street, Carter Park, Eastside Parallel Trail Expansion, Emergency Response Program, Pilarcitos Creek Restoration, LCP Implementation Project, Climate Action And Adaptation, Downtown Streetscape Master Plan, Smith Field Site Assessment, Seymour Ditch Erosion And Coast, Kehoe/Pilarcitos Outfall Repair, and the Manhole Rehab Program.
Staff is also including a list of all payments above $30,000 processed during this reporting period, as listed in the table below.
5 OVER $30,000
Check
# Payee Check Date Amount Description
55048 HMBAY PARTNERS II, LLC 8/1/2024 $134,620 637 MAIN LEASE FOR OPPORTUNITY CENTER COASTSIDE 55050 Mercy Housing California 110, LP 8/1/2024 $324,090 MERCY HOUSING 555 KELLY ARPA DRAW 55072 H & R PLUMBING AND DRAIN CLEANING
INC. 8/8/2024 $36,150 FY 23/24 MANHOLE REHABILITATION PROJECT 55076 Jobtrain Inc 8/8/2024 $30,620 JOB SEEKER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SERVICES AT
THE OCC
55098 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 8/15/2024 $32,606 OCC IMPROVEMENTS 55147 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION 8/15/2024 $396,358 CARTER PARK
55163 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING
INC. 8/22/2024 $197,252 POPLAR STREET TRAFFIC CALMING
55169 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 8/22/2024 $488,686 FY 24/25 SAM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 8/29/2024 $184,202 CITY-WIDE LEGAL SERVICES ATTACHMENTS:
Check Disbursement List by Check Date
6 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Report Criteria:
Report type: GL detail
54955 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC. 08/01/2024 CO 1 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR ADDITIONALMANAGEMENT & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEME 12,451.32- 54955 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC. 08/01/2024 CO 1 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR ADDITIONALMANAGEMENT & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEME 12,111.12- Total 54955: 24,562.44-
55013 KONICA MINOLTA 08/01/2024 FINAL BAL COPIER AND LEASE 2,275.23- Total 55013: 2,275.23-
55038 ABUNDANT GRACE COASTSIDE WORKER 08/01/2024 HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CLEAN UP FINAL INV FY '23/24 2,800.00 Total 55038: 2,800.00
55039 ACC BUSINESS 08/01/2024 INTERNET SERVICE 780.91
55039 ACC BUSINESS 08/01/2024 INTERNET SERVICE 780.91
Total 55039: 1,561.82
55040 Alejandro Vilchez 08/01/2024 WORKSHOP-GANG DIVERSION 1,200.00 Total 55040: 1,200.00
55041 BECKER GRAPHICS 08/01/2024 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT- ZUMBA JULY'24 527.70 Total 55041: 527.70
55042 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/01/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES 100.57 55042 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/01/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES 106.95 55042 BIG CREEK LUMBER 08/01/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES 122.20 Total 55042: 329.72
55043 CA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 08/01/2024 SMIP Q4 FY23/24 REPORT FEE 765.05 55043 CA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 08/01/2024 SMIP FEES WITHHELD FY'23/24 QTR4 38.25- Total 55043: 726.80
55044 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSIO 08/01/2024 BSASRF Q4 FY23/24 REPORT FEE 264.00 55044 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSIO 08/01/2024 BSASRF Q4 FY23/24 RETAINER 26.40- 7 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55044: 237.60
55045 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC. 08/01/2024 CO 1 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR ADDITIONALMANAGEMENT & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEME 12,111.12 Total 55045: 12,111.12
55046 Hassett Services 08/01/2024 4 DEADBOLTS 637 MAIN ST 300.00 Total 55046: 300.00
55047 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 08/01/2024 Provide daily operation and facility oversight via Opportunity Center of the Coastside 11,442.44 55047 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 08/01/2024 MAY'24 BID (IN CITY) 7,987.00 55047 HMB COASTSIDE CHAMBER 08/01/2024 MAY'24 BID (OOC) 2,714.00 Total 55047: 22,143.44
55048 HMBAY PARTNERS II, LLC 08/01/2024 637 MAIN LEASE FOR OPPORTUNITYCENTER COASTSIDE 134,620.00 Total 55048: 134,620.00
55049 KONICA MINOLTA 08/01/2024 FINAL BAL COPIER AND LEASE 2,275.21 Total 55049: 2,275.21
55050 Mercy Housing California 110, LP 08/01/2024 MERCY HOUSING 555 KELLY ARPA DRAW 324,090.37 Total 55050: 324,090.37
55051 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS CHTD 08/01/2024 PSA FOR ASSISTANCE WITH SEYMOUR OUTFALL EMERGENCY PROJECT POST CONSTRUCTION TASKS, I 2,585.00 Total 55051: 2,585.00
55052 RINCON CONSULTANTS INC. 08/01/2024 5/1/24 - 6/30/24 HOUSING ELEMENT 1,854.75 Total 55052: 1,854.75
55053 ROBERT HALF 08/01/2024 MARGARET MCNULTY 7/26/2024 1,574.72 Total 55053: 1,574.72
55054 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 08/01/2024 JUNE 2024 PASS THROUGH INVOICES 1,500.00 8 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55054: 1,500.00
55055 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/01/2024 HWY 1 NORTH SAFETY AND OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENTS 690.00 55055 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/01/2024 PO FOR THE PSA FOR BIOLOGICAL MONITORING TO SUPPORT STAR CREEK WITH THE 2024 VEGETATIO 913.00 55055 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/01/2024 Piilarcitos Creek Environmental 2,511.50 55055 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/01/2024 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 1,354.00 Total 55055: 5,468.50
55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 187.12 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 13.89 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 20.78 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 7.61 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 21.61 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 9.58 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 21.69 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 15.48 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 35.91 55056 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/01/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 10.21 Total 55056: 343.88
55057 T-MOBILE 08/01/2024 ACCT 997385192 JULY '24 93.45 Total 55057: 93.45
55058 TULLY CONSULTING GROUP 08/01/2024 SWPPP SERVICES FOR POPLAR STREET TRAFFIC CALMING & SAFETY PROJECT PHASE 1 1,300.00 Total 55058: 1,300.00
55059 VESTIS 08/01/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES CITY HALL 198.99 55059 VESTIS 08/01/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY 127.53 Total 55059: 326.52
55060 WATERWAYS CONSULTING INC 08/01/2024 PROJ 2800 CHAMPS ELYSSE PDP-17-055 1,707.50 55060 WATERWAYS CONSULTING INC 08/01/2024 PROJ 2800 CHAMPS ELYSSE PDP-17-055 1,707.50 55060 WATERWAYS CONSULTING INC 08/01/2024 PROJ 2800 CHAMPS ELYSSE PDP-17-055 1,707.50- Total 55060: 1,707.50
55061 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/01/2024 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY VITALITY CONSULTANT SERVICES (GENERAL) 5,100.00 9 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55061 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/01/2024 ECONOMIC CONSULTANT AT OPPORUNITY COASTSIDE CENTER 2,847.50 55061 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/01/2024 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY VITALITY CONSULTANT SERVICES (GENERAL) 850.00 55061 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/01/2024 ECONOMIC CONSULTANT AT OPPORUNITY COASTSIDE CENTER 4,122.50 55061 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/01/2024 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROG - CYCLE 7 GRANT APPLICATION 2,550.00 55061 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/01/2024 PHASE 1 OF DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE CONSULTANT 1,870.00 55061 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/01/2024 PHASE 1 OF DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE CONSULTANT 1,190.00 Total 55061: 18,530.00
55062 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/08/2024 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL & SERVICES FY '24-25 1,311.95 55062 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/08/2024 FY 23-24 PORTABLE TOLIETS 2,000.39 55062 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/08/2024 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL & SERVICES FY '24-25 808.35 55062 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/08/2024 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL & SERVICES FY '24-25 4,370.81 55062 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/08/2024 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL & SERVICES FY '24-25 2,001.95 55062 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/08/2024 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL & SERVICES FY '24-25 3,764.80 55062 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/08/2024 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL & SERVICES FY '24-25 5,326.87 Total 55062: 19,585.12
55063 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 08/08/2024 FY'24 Levelized Charge-Nat Gas 460.00 55063 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 08/08/2024 FY'23 True-Up 358.51 Total 55063: 818.51
55064 AVENU INSIGHTS & ANALYTICS LLC 08/08/2024 STARS Q1 2024 625.00 Total 55064: 625.00
55065 CALIFORNIA COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN SOLS. 08/08/2024 PROVIDE SEWER ASSESSMENT ASSISTANCE & DATA PREPARATIONS FOR THE CITY 15,340.00 Total 55065: 15,340.00
55066 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 08/08/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES JULY'24 2,435.96 Total 55066: 2,435.96
55067 CASELLE INC. 08/08/2024 FY 24/25 CASELLE ERP SOFTWARE 3,843.00 Total 55067: 3,843.00
55068 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/08/2024 BLD RES 24 0009 - 880 STONE PINE RD 7,059.90 55068 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/08/2024 BLD RES 24 0026 - 880 STONE PINE RD 172.16 10 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55068: 7,232.06
55069 EMMA NAVARRETE 08/08/2024 DEPOSIT REFUND-TRAIN DEPOT 7/27/24 500.00 Total 55069: 500.00
55070 FlowBird America Inc 08/08/2024 JUNE'24 MAINT SERVICE 97.30 55070 FlowBird America Inc 08/08/2024 JULY'24 MAINT SERVICE 129.50 55070 FlowBird America Inc 08/08/2024 JULY'24 MAINT SERVICE 112.00 Total 55070: 338.80
55071 GATES AND ASSOCIATES 08/08/2024 SMITH FIELD FACILITIES MASTER PLAN 1,070.00 Total 55071: 1,070.00
55072 H & R PLUMBING AND DRAIN CLEANING INC. 08/08/2024 PO FOR MINOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR FY '23/24 MANHOLE REHABILITATION PROJECT 35,050.00 55072 H & R PLUMBING AND DRAIN CLEANING INC. 08/08/2024 CO1 FY '23/24 MANHOLE REHABILITATION PROJECT 1,100.00 Total 55072: 36,150.00
55073 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 08/08/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES 696.93 Total 55073: 696.93
55074 IMPEC GROUP INC. 08/08/2024 Provide custodial services for the OCC 780.00 Total 55074: 780.00
55075 INTEGRAL CONSULTING INC. 08/08/2024 PREPARATION OF THE CLIMATE ADAPTION PLAN(CIP 1002) 6,487.05 Total 55075: 6,487.05
55076 Jobtrain Inc 08/08/2024 TO PROVIDE JOB SEEKER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SERVICES FOR THE COASTSIDE COM 30,620.31 Total 55076: 30,620.31
55077 Mark Hofmann 08/08/2024 PICKLEBALL LESSONS- 7/27/24 75.00 Total 55077: 75.00
55078 MTA PARTS INC. 08/08/2024 VEHICLE PARTS 60.13
11 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55078 MTA PARTS INC. 08/08/2024 VEHICLE PARTS 247.67
55078 MTA PARTS INC. 08/08/2024 VEHICLE PARTS 12.45
Total 55078: 320.25
55079 NEIGHBORHOOD RADIO 08/08/2024 AUG'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE 110.00 55079 NEIGHBORHOOD RADIO 08/08/2024 JULY'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE 110.00 Total 55079: 220.00
55080 NICHOLAS TRANSLATIONS & INTERPRETATIONS 08/08/2024 JULY'24 TRANSLATION SERVICE 380.00 Total 55080: 380.00
55081 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/08/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES 102.79 Total 55081: 102.79
55082 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING INC. 08/08/2024 HIGHWAY 1 SAFETY NORTH 12,600.00 55082 PENINSULA MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING INC. 08/08/2024 CHANGE ORDER 3, PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR EASTSIDE PARALLEL TRAIL AND HWY1 SAFE 5,850.00 Total 55082: 18,450.00
55083 PETERSON 08/08/2024 Back-Up Generator Services 3,465.31 Total 55083: 3,465.31
55084 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES INC 08/08/2024 MAINTENANCE SERVICE 1,155.00 Total 55084: 1,155.00
55085 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/08/2024 AUG'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP-072-13 864.00 55085 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/08/2024 AUG'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP-072-13 864.00 55085 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/08/2024 AUG'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP-072-13 864.00- Total 55085: 864.00
55086 SCHAAF & WHEELER 08/08/2024 PILARCITOS AVENUE/KEHOE WATERCOURSE OUTFALL 1,134.00 Total 55086: 1,134.00
55087 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/08/2024 HWY1 NORTH SAFETY & OP IMPROVEMENTS RIPARIAN MITIGATION 4,168.50 12 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55087: 4,168.50
55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-KIDS CAN COOK WEEK 3 1,155.00 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 5.84 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 7.62 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 8.36 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 7.68 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 1.49 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 7.96 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 3.81 55088 TARA SHUTTLEWORTH 08/08/2024 REIMBURSEMENT : CAMP SUPPLIES 2.69 Total 55088: 1,200.45
55089 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS 08/08/2024 CITATION PROCESSING 1,170.98 Total 55089: 1,170.98
55090 VERDEK LLC 08/08/2024 ORDER SWAP & RESTOCKING FEE 1,779.61 Total 55090: 1,779.61
55091 VESTIS 08/08/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES CITY HALL 198.99 55091 VESTIS 08/08/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY 127.53 Total 55091: 326.52
55092 VICTOR HERNANDEZ 08/08/2024 JULY'24 TRANSLATION SERVICES 2,700.00 Total 55092: 2,700.00
55093 ZONES, LLC 08/08/2024 (2) GOV ACROBAT PRO DC ENTERPRISE 11 MONTHS 189.98 Total 55093: 189.98
55095 A CABALLERO PRODUCTIONS 08/15/2024 STAGE RENTAL SUMMER'S END 2024 6,415.00 Total 55095: 6,415.00
55096 A2Z PRODUCTIONS 08/15/2024 SUMMER'S END 2024 1,500.00 13 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55096: 1,500.00
55097 Alex Lucero 08/15/2024 SUMMER'S END 2024 1,500.00 Total 55097: 1,500.00
55098 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 08/15/2024 REINBURSEMENT FOR PAINTING CSVS OFFICE 2,640.00 55098 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 08/15/2024 TO LAUNCH & OPERATE COASTSIDE VENTURE STUDIO (CSVS) A BUSINESS INCUBATOR VIA THE OCC 29,965.85 Total 55098: 32,605.85
55099 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 08/15/2024 FY'25 Levelized Charge-Nat Gas 450.00 55099 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 08/15/2024 WORKING CAPITAL DEPOSIT 22.78 Total 55099: 472.78
55100 AT&T 08/15/2024 JULY'24 PHONE SERVICE 1,974.03
Total 55100: 1,974.03
55101 AT&T MOBILITY 08/15/2024 AUG'24 PHONE SERVICE 694.99 Total 55101: 694.99
55102 BAY AREA GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC 08/15/2024 CO1 BASED ON AMENDMENT 2 TO PSA FOR MATERIAL TESTING & SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES FOR 19,650.00 Total 55102: 19,650.00
55103 BFI OF CALIFORNIA - 4278A 08/15/2024 GREEN WASTE MULCH 1,575.00 Total 55103: 1,575.00
55104 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC 08/15/2024 MAINT SERVICE #102236 95.00 55104 BLEYLE ELEVATOR, INC 08/15/2024 MAINT SERVICE #179638 95.00 Total 55104: 190.00
55105 Cardinal Talent Group LLC 08/15/2024 2/2 OF FULL PAYMENT-LA MISA NEGRA-SUMMERS END 2024 2,000.00 Total 55105: 2,000.00
55106 CIRCLEPOINT 08/15/2024 HYATT HOTEL PDP-072-13 28,235.00 14 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55106 CIRCLEPOINT 08/15/2024 HYATT HOTEL PDP-072-13 28,235.00 55106 CIRCLEPOINT 08/15/2024 HYATT HOTEL PDP-072-13 28,235.00- Total 55106: 28,235.00
55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 555 KELLY AVE 47.21 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 CITY OF HMB / COAST.COMM.SENIOR CNTR. 32.04 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 201 WAVECREST RD 7,026.41 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 10 STONE PINE RD # IRRIGATION 188.78 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 723 MILL ST # IRRIGATION 35.81 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 LIFT STATI FAIRWAY DR 35.81 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 1310 LORYN LN # IRRIGATION 327.23 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 HIGGINS CYN RD 343.42 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 529 RUISSEAU FRANCAIS AVE # IRRIGATION 464.01 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 502 MAIN ST 327.23 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 FERNANDES PARK/MAIN ST # IRRIGATION 68.19 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 620 CORREAS/LIBRARY #DC 48.06 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 620 CORREAS/LIBRARY #IRRIGATION 87.10 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 620 CORREAS/LIBRARY 544.96 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 HYDRANT METER 387.59 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 501 MAIN ST_DC 32.04 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 880 STONE PINE RD 307.56 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 MAIN & HWY 1 # IRRIGATION 311.04 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 MEDIAN STRIP/ HWY ONE # IRRIGATION 35.81 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 537 KELLY AVE 133.87 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 535 KELLY AVE 524.23 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 461 OAK AVE 52.00 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 503 JOHNSTON ST 100.57 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 HWY 92 MEDIAN # WEST IRRIG 35.81 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 HWY 92 MEDIAN # EAST IRRIG 35.81 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 627 ALSACE LORAINE AVE 440.56 55107 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/15/2024 501 MAIN ST 165.33 Total 55107: 12,138.48
55108 COASTSIDE TECHNICAL SERVICE 08/15/2024 MAINT SERVICE AC 1,053.91 55108 COASTSIDE TECHNICAL SERVICE 08/15/2024 MAINT SERVICE AC 593.44 Total 55108: 1,647.35
55109 COLANTUONO HIGHSMITH WHATLEY PC 08/15/2024 JULY'24 LEGAL SERVICES -SAM 9,121.95 15 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55109: 9,121.95
55110 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT INC 08/15/2024 JULY'24 RECORDS MANAGEMENT 452.15 Total 55110: 452.15
55111 CRUZIO INTERNET 08/15/2024 INTERNET SERVICE 14.95 Total 55111: 14.95
55112 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 08/15/2024 SUMMER'S END LICENSE 50.00 Total 55112: 50.00
55113 Economic & Planning Systems Inc 08/15/2024 ANNUAL FISCAL ANALYSIS 7,000.00 Total 55113: 7,000.00
55114 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 08/15/2024 JULY'24 FUEL 1,864.12 Total 55114: 1,864.12
55115 FUN SERVICES 08/15/2024 SUMMER'S END 5,309.05
Total 55115: 5,309.05
55116 GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM, INC 08/15/2024 SUBSCRIPTION FEE, GOVERNMENTJOBS.COM 839.22 Total 55116: 839.22
55117 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/15/2024 AUG'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 27.34 55117 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/15/2024 AUG'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 73.26 55117 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/15/2024 AUG'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 43.75 55117 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/15/2024 AUG'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 27.32 Total 55117: 171.67
55118 HALF MOON BAY FLOORS TO GO 08/15/2024 OCC FLOORING 6,400.00 Total 55118: 6,400.00
55119 Henna Creationz LLC 08/15/2024 SUMMER'S END 2024 1,550.00 16 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55119: 1,550.00
55120 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 08/15/2024 SEPT'24 SECURITY SERVICE 197.77 55120 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 08/15/2024 SEPT'24 SECURITY SERVICE 499.85 55120 HUE & CRY SECURITY SYSTEMS INC. 08/15/2024 SEPT'24 SECURITY SERVICE 24.00 Total 55120: 721.62
55121 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES 08/15/2024 FY 24/25 INFINITY TECH DESKTOP/HELP DESK 13,960.00 55121 INFINITY TECHNOLOGIES 08/15/2024 DATTO BACKUP O365 164.25 Total 55121: 14,124.25
55122 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTL PROD (BURL) 08/15/2024 AUG'24 MAINT SUPPLIES PAINT 691.91 Total 55122: 691.91
55123 Jobtrain Inc 08/15/2024 TO PROVIDE JOB SEEKER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SERVICES FOR THE COASTSIDE COM 28,476.10 Total 55123: 28,476.10
55124 Joe Habib 08/15/2024 REFUND-COED SOFTBALL MINUS ADMIN FEE 375.00 Total 55124: 375.00
55125 Juliet Lefevre 08/15/2024 PICKLEBALL REFUND #1 INTRO SERIES 160.00 Total 55125: 160.00
55126 Karla's Janitorial & Suppliers, LLC 08/15/2024 JANITORIAL SERVICES FY '24-25 15,209.50 Total 55126: 15,209.50
55127 Laurel Dunston 08/15/2024 REFUND: 8/21/2024 80.00 Total 55127: 80.00
55128 LORAL LANDSCAPING INC. 08/15/2024 FY 2024-25 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES AGREEMENT 4,160.00 Total 55128: 4,160.00
55129 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 08/15/2024 DOG TRAINING-12 WEEKS 1,260.00 17 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55129 MARIAN ELIZABETH POTT 08/15/2024 DOG TRAINING- GOOD CITIZEN LIFE SKILLS 700.00 Total 55129: 1,960.00
55130 Mark Hofmann 08/15/2024 PICKLEBALL LESSONS- 8/8/24 90.00 Total 55130: 90.00
55131 M-GROUP 08/15/2024 NEW PO REQUEST FOR M-GROUP 6,061.25 Total 55131: 6,061.25
55132 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 08/15/2024 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND CITYWIDE FEE STUDY 2,475.00 Total 55132: 2,475.00
55133 PACIFIC COAST TRANE 08/15/2024 PO FOR SOFTWARE UPGRADE OF THE LIBRARY'S BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 11,999.00 Total 55133: 11,999.00
55134 Quang Pham 08/15/2024 REFUND- DEPOSIT OAK ROOM 10/12/24 300.00 Total 55134: 300.00
55135 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 08/15/2024 JUNE'24 WASTE REMOVAL 91.12 55135 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 08/15/2024 JULY'24 WASTE REMOVAL 273.36 55135 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 08/15/2024 MAY'24 WASTE REMOVAL 35.00 55135 REPUBLIC SERVICES #925 08/15/2024 JULY'24 WASTE REMOVAL 91.12 Total 55135: 490.60
55136 RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM INC. 08/15/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES 63.44 Total 55136: 63.44
55137 ROBERT HALF 08/15/2024 MARGARET MCNULTY 8/2/2024 1,968.40 Total 55137: 1,968.40
55138 Robin Camozzi 08/15/2024 REFUND- DEPOSIT TRAIN DEPOT 8/10/24 100.00 Total 55138: 100.00
18 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55139 Sable Computer Inc. 08/15/2024 CAMERA, INTERCOM, & BADGE SYSTEM 16,399.09 55139 Sable Computer Inc. 08/15/2024 CAMERA, INTERCOM, & BADGE SYSTEM 6,820.47 Total 55139: 23,219.56
55140 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/15/2024 AUG'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP-24-044 864.00 55140 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/15/2024 AUG'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP-24-044 864.00 55140 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/15/2024 AUG'24 ADVERTISING SERVICE PDP-24-044 864.00- Total 55140: 864.00
55141 STATE CONTROLLER 08/15/2024 2023 FTB OFFSET PROGRAM 29.52 55141 STATE CONTROLLER 08/15/2024 2023 FTB OFFSET PROGRAM 2.11 55141 STATE CONTROLLER 08/15/2024 2023 FTB OFFSET PROGRAM 2.20 Total 55141: 33.83
55142 SUBURBAN PROPANE LP 08/15/2024 PROPANE ACCT 1601-064098 689.23 Total 55142: 689.23
55143 TIM D. HILBORN 08/15/2024 SUMMER'S END 2024 1,200.00 Total 55143: 1,200.00
55144 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 08/15/2024 JULY'24 CONSULTING SERVICES 3,000.00 Total 55144: 3,000.00
55145 Tristan Keller 08/15/2024 SKATEBOARD LESSONS 7/11-7/30 384.00 Total 55145: 384.00
55146 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY 08/15/2024 JULY'24 EXTERMINATOR SERVICES 1,520.00 Total 55146: 1,520.00
55147 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO 08/15/2024 CATER PARK (THROUGH CHANGE ORDER 13) 417,218.56 55147 WICKMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO 08/15/2024 CATER PARK RETENTION 20,860.93- Total 55147: 396,357.63
55148 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/15/2024 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY VITALITY CONSULTANT SERVICES (GENERAL) 1,700.00 19 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 14 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55148 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/15/2024 ECONOMIC CONSULTANT AT OPPORUNITY COASTSIDE CENTER 7,820.00 55148 WOOD CONSULTING SERVICES 08/15/2024 PHASE 1 OF DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE CONSULTANT 1,742.50 Total 55148: 11,262.50
55149 ZACH TRENHOLM 08/15/2024 SUMMER'S END 2024 1,150.00 Total 55149: 1,150.00
55150 ZONES, LLC 08/15/2024 FY '24/25 ZONES MICROSOFT 365 LICENSING 5.65 55150 ZONES, LLC 08/15/2024 FY '24/25 ZONES MICROSOFT 365 LICENSING 189.98 55150 ZONES, LLC 08/15/2024 FY '24/25 ZONES MICROSOFT 365 LICENSING 13.29 Total 55150: 208.92
55151 4LEAF INC. 08/22/2024 4LEAF ON-CALL SERVICES-JULY 2024 23,899.09 Total 55151: 23,899.09
55152 ALTA PLANNING & DESIGN 08/22/2024 CHANGE ORDER 3, PACIFIC COAST BIKEWAY CONNECTIVITY NORTH PROJECT 1,225.00 Total 55152: 1,225.00
55153 CA DEPT OF JUSTICE 08/22/2024 JUL'24 FINGERPRINT APPS 32.00 Total 55153: 32.00
55154 Cesar Velazquez 08/22/2024 DEPOSIT REFUND-TRAIN DEPOT 8/4/24 500.00 Total 55154: 500.00
55155 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/22/2024 BIO SERVICES WAVE AVE PDP-24-007 4,305.00 55155 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/22/2024 BIO SERVICES WAVE AVE PDP-24-007 4,305.00 55155 COAST RIDGE ECOLOGY 08/22/2024 BIO SERVICES WAVE AVE PDP-24-007 4,305.00- Total 55155: 4,305.00
55156 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/22/2024 880 STONE PINE ENGINEERING REVIEW 1,284.40 55156 COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 08/22/2024 880 STONE PINE PLAN REVIEW 3,105.42 Total 55156: 4,389.82
55157 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 08/22/2024 JULY'24 MICROWAVE MUX 82.25 20 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 15 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55157: 82.25
55158 CSW/STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP IN 08/22/2024 DESIGN SUPPORT DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR POPLAR ST TRAFFIC CALMING & SAFETY PROJECT PHA 9,906.00 Total 55158: 9,906.00
55159 ELS ARCHITECTURE & URBAN DESIGN 08/22/2024 CO3 FOR AMENDMENT 7 PSA FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 3,317.50 Total 55159: 3,317.50
55160 GOETZ BROS. SPORTING GOODS 08/22/2024 AUG 2024 MAINT HATS 1,365.00 Total 55160: 1,365.00
55161 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC. 08/22/2024 CO 1 CARTER PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR ADDITIONALMANAGEMENT & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEME 11,733.12 Total 55161: 11,733.12
55162 HALF MOON BAY BUILDING & GARDEN 08/22/2024 AUG'24 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 21.88 Total 55162: 21.88
55163 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 08/22/2024 CONSTRUCTION FOR POPLAR STREET TRAFFICE CALMING- PHASE 1 207,633.17 55163 HALF MOON BAY GRADING & PAVING INC. 08/22/2024 RETENTION 8/2/2024 10,381.66- Total 55163: 197,251.51
55164 Maria Pineda 08/22/2024 DEPOSIT REFUND- TRAIN DEPOT 8/10/24 500.00 Total 55164: 500.00
55165 Normand Contreras 08/22/2024 TACO BAR-STAFF APPRECIATION BBQ 600.00 Total 55165: 600.00
55166 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/22/2024 DATE STAMP CIRCLE 89.13 55166 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/22/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES 21.55 55166 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/22/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.12 Total 55166: 191.80
55167 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS ASSOC. INC 08/22/2024 ONE MAN GAMES 390.00 21 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 16 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55167: 390.00
55168 RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM INC. 08/22/2024 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 131.25 55168 RICE TRUCKING-SOIL FARM INC. 08/22/2024 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 126.88 Total 55168: 258.13
55169 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 08/22/2024 GENERAL OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE FY 24/25 PLUS ADDITIONAL TO COVER POTENTAL PASS-THR 814.22 55169 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 08/22/2024 GENERAL OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE FY 24/25 PLUS ADDITIONAL TO COVER POTENTAL PASS-THR 470,187.90 55169 SEWER AUTHORITY MID-COASTSIDE 08/22/2024 FY 2024/25 SEWER COLLECTIONS 17,684.08 Total 55169: 488,686.20
55170 SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 08/22/2024 PRINTER LEASE- 48 MONTHS-AUG 2024 1,079.69 Total 55170: 1,079.69
55171 STAR VISTA 08/22/2024 JUL-DEC 2024 STAR VISTA-FIRST CHANCE PROGRAM 6,853.92 Total 55171: 6,853.92
55172 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/22/2024 PREPARE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR STONE PINE COVE AFFORDABLE HO 5,990.25 55172 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/22/2024 PREPARE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR STONE PINE COVE AFFORDABLE HO 8,945.81 Total 55172: 14,936.06
55173 VESTIS 08/22/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES CITY HALL 198.99 55173 VESTIS 08/22/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY 127.53 Total 55173: 326.52
55174 ACC BUSINESS 08/29/2024 INTERNET SERVICE 785.91
Total 55174: 785.91
55175 AMERICAN ENERGY SOCIETY 08/29/2024 REINBURSEMENT FOR WALLPAPER SUITE A 950.00 Total 55175: 950.00
55176 AMERICAN PORTABLES 08/29/2024 PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL & SERVICES FY '24-25 195.65 22 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 17 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55176: 195.65
55177 ANDREW GOMEZ 08/29/2024 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT-MUSIC TOGETHER 1,101.20 Total 55177: 1,101.20
55178 Connie Lynn Flora 08/29/2024 DEPOSIT 20% FACE PAINTING 210.00 Total 55178: 210.00
55179 CONNIE LYNN FLORA 08/29/2024 80% REMAINING-FACE PAINT 840.00 Total 55179: 840.00
55180 CRISTINA ROMERO 08/29/2024 DEPOSIT REFUND-TRAIN DEPOT 8/18/24 500.00 Total 55180: 500.00
55181 FREYER & LAURETA INC. 08/29/2024 CHANGE ORDER 2. SMITH FIELD PARK 8,337.50 Total 55181: 8,337.50
55182 GRANICUS 08/29/2024 AUG'24, GRANICUS SERVICE 1,564.85 Total 55182: 1,564.85
55183 HDL COREN & CONE 08/29/2024 2023-24 ACFR STATISTICAL PACKAGE 695.00 Total 55183: 695.00
55184 HDL SOFTWARE LLC 08/29/2024 FY '24/25 HDL TOT & BUSINESS LICENSE MANAGEMENT 5,674.77 Total 55184: 5,674.77
55185 JAMES FORD INC. 08/29/2024 VEHICLE SERVICE 707.31 55185 JAMES FORD INC. 08/29/2024 OVERPAYMENT 76.20-
Total 55185: 631.11
55186 Julie Ron 08/29/2024 DEPOSIT REFUND-CIMMUNITY B 8/18/24 100.00 23 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 18 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55186: 100.00
55187 KATHY OLER 08/29/2024 SEPT'24 TEMPORARY CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL 2,293.47 Total 55187: 2,293.47
55188 LAURA CAMODECA 08/29/2024 CONTINUING ODOR, INTRO K9 FOUNDATION, INTRO K9 NOSE 1,512.00 Total 55188: 1,512.00
55189 Laurel Dunston 08/29/2024 REFUND-EVENT CANCELLED 8/21/2024 40.00 55189 Laurel Dunston 08/29/2024 REFUND-EVENT CANCELLED 8/21/2024 96.57 55189 Laurel Dunston 08/29/2024 REFUND-EVENT CANCELLED 8/21/2024 500.00 Total 55189: 636.57
55190 LISA POPE 08/29/2024 TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE JUNE 18 2024 468.75 55190 LISA POPE 08/29/2024 TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE JUNE 26 2024 412.50 55190 LISA POPE 08/29/2024 TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE JULY 16 2024 500.00 55190 LISA POPE 08/29/2024 TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE JULY 31 2024 312.50 55190 LISA POPE 08/29/2024 TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE AUG 7 2024 687.50 Total 55190: 2,381.25
55191 LIZETT LUNA 08/29/2024 DEPOSIT REFUND-TRAIN DEPOT 8/17/24 500.00 Total 55191: 500.00
55192 LOCKWORKS UNLIMITED INC 08/29/2024 OCEAN VIEW PARK RESTROOMS 450.87 Total 55192: 450.87
55193 MALCOLM C SMITH 08/29/2024 COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT SERVICE-JULY 2024 605.00 Total 55193: 605.00
55194 MARIK ENTERPRISES, LLC 08/29/2024 PRE-EMPLOYMENT REPORT DALE LEDA 155.00 Total 55194: 155.00
55195 Mark Hofmann 08/29/2024 PICKLEBALL--DROP SHOT, KITCHEN, MUZZI LESSON 150.00 24 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 19 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55195: 150.00
55196 MARK THOMAS & CO, INC 08/29/2024 CHANGE ORDER 2,HWY 1 N SAFETY & OP IMPROVEMENTS 4,574.50 Total 55196: 4,574.50
55197 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/29/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES 192.73 Total 55197: 192.73
55198 PACIFIC COAST TRANE 08/29/2024 LIBRARY MAINT LABOR 1,146.00 Total 55198: 1,146.00
55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 CITY OF HMB 501 MAIN ST A 7.84 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 OCEAN COLONY PARTNERS/OCP LIFT STATION 1,094.67 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 COMMUNITY CENTER 1,422.97 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 MAINTENANCE YARD OFFICE-ELECTRIC 138.43 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 BELL MOON LIFT STATION 36.14 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 TRAIN DEPOT RSTMS 171.59 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 HWY 1 & FAIRWAY LIGHTING 36.68 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 HWY 1 & FAIRWAY LIGHTING 85.58 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 SMITH FIELD 25.34 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 SHERIFF SUB-STATION 2,730.77 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 SMITH FIELD SNACK BAR 383.04 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 CITY OF HMB / STREET LIGHTS 4,357.42 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 NW HWY 1 & MAIN ST 123.67 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 DUTRA PARK 127.86 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 DOWNTOWN ST TREE LIGHTS NORTH HOOK-UP @ 700 MILL ST 1,260.73 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 HWY 1 & MIRAMONTES TRAFFIC SIGNAL 67.62 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 DOWNTOWN ST TREE LIGHTS SOUTH HOOK-UP @ 650 MIRAMONTES 1,379.99 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 PELICAN POINT LIFT STATION 231.05 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 PACIFIC RIDGE LIGHT POLES 49.25 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 HWY 1 & MIRAMONTES LIGHTING 37.20 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 HWY 1 & MIRAMONTES LIGHTING 86.79 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 CITY HALL BUILDING 2,537.92 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 PILARCITOS CREEK BRIDGE 109.19 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 PILARCITOS CREEK UNDERPASS 25.68 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 MOON SCULPTURE SPOTLIGHTS 23.11 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 MOON SCULPTURE SPOTLIGHTS 53.93 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 OCEAN VIEW PARK 22.51 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 401 SEYMOUR ST 50.53 25 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 20 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55199 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 08/29/2024 401 SEYMOUR ST 117.89 Total 55199: 16,795.39
55200 PHIL'S TIRE & AUTO CARE 08/29/2024 VEHICLE REPAIR 722.42 Total 55200: 722.42
55201 PUBLIC PARKING ASSOCIATES INC 08/29/2024 NEW PARKING MACHINE 7,635.73 Total 55201: 7,635.73
55202 RINGCENTRAL INC. 08/29/2024 PHONE SERVICES 2,349.07 Total 55202: 2,349.07
55203 ROBERT HALF 08/29/2024 BRUMFIELD, BYRA M 08/23/2024 1,919.23 Total 55203: 1,919.23
55204 Robert Williamson Jr Tr 08/29/2024 REFUND-B2024-00242 BLDG PERMIT PLAN CHECK FEE 641.88 55204 Robert Williamson Jr Tr 08/29/2024 REFUND-B2024-00242 PLANNING PLAN CHECK (HRLY) 255.00 55204 Robert Williamson Jr Tr 08/29/2024 REFUND-B2024-00242 BLDG PLAN REVIEW/SUPPORT TI OR ADDITION 486.00 Total 55204: 1,382.88
55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 4/30/24 FINANCE CHARGE 17.28 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 5/31/24 FINANCE CHARGE 60.83 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 6/30/24 FINANCE CHARGE 76.44 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 7/31/24 FINANCE CHARGE 66.45 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-23-026 720.00 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-23-026 720.00 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-23-026 720.00- 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING 864.00 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-22-065 1,008.00 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-22-065 1,008.00 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-22-065 1,008.00- 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-23-094 720.00 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-23-094 720.00 55205 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 08/29/2024 ADVERTISING PDP-23-094 720.00- Total 55205: 3,533.00
26 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 21 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55206 SCI CONSULTING GROUP 08/29/2024 ON-CALL SPECIAL TAX CONSULTING SERVICES FOR A PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL TAX MEASUR 5,000.00 Total 55206: 5,000.00
55207 SCOTT MCVICKER 08/29/2024 FY '24 ANNEX RENT - JULY, AUG, SEPT 3,360.00 Total 55207: 3,360.00
55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.GEN 47,939.64 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.555 8,557.54 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.HILLTOP 309.40 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.SMITHMP 375.70 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.HYATT 33,217.59 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.GEMANIS 1,031.22 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.RENT 3,594.05 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.GEARING 65,166.48 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.HUYNH 53.40 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.SAM 23,583.90 55208 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP 08/29/2024 HMB.WRR 373.16 Total 55208: 184,202.08
55209 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/29/2024 Pilarcitos CREEK FENCING & REHABILITATION 591.00 55209 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/29/2024 PO FOR THE PSA FOR BIOLOGICAL MONITORING TO SUPPORT STAR CREEK WITH THE 2024 VEGETATIO 1,005.50 55209 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/29/2024 for the preparation of a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSAA). 57.50 55209 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/29/2024 HWY1 NORTH SAFETY & OP IMPROVEMENTS RIPARIAN MITIGATION 1,218.50 55209 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/29/2024 HWY 1 NORTH SAFETY AND OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENTS 115.00 55209 SWCA INCORPORATED 08/29/2024 PREPARE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR STONE PINE COVE AFFORDABLE HO 4,515.25 Total 55209: 7,502.75
55210 T-MOBILE 08/29/2024 ACCT 997385192 AUG '24 93.45
Total 55210: 93.45
55211 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 08/29/2024 JUNE'24 CONSULTING SERVICES 5,000.00 Total 55211: 5,000.00
55212 VESTIS 08/29/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES CITY HALL 198.99 55212 VESTIS 08/29/2024 MAINT SUPPLIES PUBLIC LIBRARY 127.53 27 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 22 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM Total 55212: 326.52
55213 ZONES, LLC 08/29/2024 FY '24/25 ZONES MICROSOFT 365 LICENSING 1,096.96 Total 55213: 1,096.96
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES- JUNE 21.86
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC SUPPLIES- JUNE 166.74
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC SUPPLIES- JUNE 2,288.72 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CLOSED SESSION- JUNE 20.69 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CLOSED SESSION- JUNE 100.60 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES- JUNE 23.57 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC SUPPLIES- JUNE 162.96
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 RENTAL REGISTRY CODE- JUNE 119.88 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CLOSED SESSION- JUNE 18.52 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CLOSED SESSION- JUNE 118.34 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 4TH OF JULY PARADE- JUNE 36.08 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES- JUNE 88.33 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES- JUNE 541.97 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP 95.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC SUPPLIES 16.38
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 NATURE INSPIRAION HARVEY RARBACK 225.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 NATURE INSPIRATION DEBBIE RUDDOCK 225.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 NATURE INSPIRATION DEBORAH PENROSE 225.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 39.27 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 503.08 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 34.69 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 29.24 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 150.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 295.30 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 853.08 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 196.86
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 40.44 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 317.18
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 INTERNET-JUNE 356.72
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SHIPPING-JUNE 38.27
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 IT SUPPLIES-JUNE 178.10
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC SUPPLIES- JUNE 1,840.26 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC SUPPLIES- JUNE 1,418.60 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC SUPPLIES 218.40
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CA CITY MANAGER MEMBERSHIP 400.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP- JUNE 200.00
28 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 23 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CONFERENCE- JUNE 525.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SOAP DISPENSERS- JUNE 218.60 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 TOILET PARTS- JUNE 45.92
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 TRUCK SEAT COVER- JUNE 44.82 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 COFFEE- JUNE 79.98
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 LIGHT FOR TACC- JUNE 76.41 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 VEHICLE TOLL-TRAINING - JUNE 7.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 VEHICLE TOLL-TRAINING - JUNE 7.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 DRY ERASE PENS- JUNE 18.11 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 FLASHLIGHTS/EMERGENCY SUPPLIES- JUNE 521.52 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 UNIFORM SHIRTS- JUNE 1,574.19 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 UNIFORM CREDIT- JUNE 7.66- 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 GLASS FROSTING- JUNE 34.99 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 BARRICADE RENTAL- JUNE 1,149.75 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 BELTS FOR DEERE TRACTOR 123.52 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 BLINDS FOR CITY HALL 2,600.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CANDY 4TH OF JULY PARADE 54.96 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 TOLL INVOICE-TRAINING 7.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 TESTING-RAMSEY & CARLOS 200.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 196.85
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 29.52 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 37.57
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 IT SUPPLIES 310.46
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 IT SUPPLIES 69.73
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SHERIFF CABLE 202.72
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 INTERNET 293.33
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 IT SUPPLIES 53.08
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES 142.18
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 58.44
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.73
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 500.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OCC UTILITIES 200.83
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 STORAGE SUPPLIES-JUNE 131.23 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 EEC SUPPLY-JUNE 97.18
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 91.91
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 14.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CITY 65TH CELEBRATION-JUNE 30.60 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CITY 65TH CELEBRATION-JUNE 296.92 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 20.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 437.48
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUBSCRIPTION 70.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CITY 65TH CELEBRATION-JUNE 60.90 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 250.00
29 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 24 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 307.92
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 IT PRINTERS-JUNE 730.30
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 69.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP 50.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 NOT FRAUD-WILL REIMBURSE 228.49 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 72.16 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CONFERENCE-JUNE 650.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CONFERENCE-JUNE 1,123.15
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEETING-JUNE 87.97
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 104.59
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 230.78
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 39.36 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 20.73 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 OFFICE SUPPLIES-JUNE 24.05 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 TRAINING 285.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 PARKING SMC RECORDER PDP-23-034 1.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 PARKING SMC RECORDER PDP-23-034 1.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 PARKING SMC RECORDER PDP-23-034 1.00- 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 STONE PINE 12.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 555 KELLY PDP-23-034 50.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 555 KELLY PDP-23-034 50.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 555 KELLY PDP-23-034 50.00- 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 CAD 1 MONTH SUBSCRIPTION 250.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 875.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 31.70
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 32.80
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP-JUNE 16.40
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 8.74
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 89.29
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 16.78
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 15.33
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 208.79
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 7.65
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 ADVERTISING-JUNE 119.99
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 86.38
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 132.37
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 ADVERTISING-JUNE 147.26
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES-JUNE 15.47
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP 460.00
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP 11.99
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 MEMBERSHIP 16.40
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES 32.80
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES 206.45
30 City of Half Moon Bay Check Register - [Council] Warrants Report Page: 25 Check Issue Dates: 8/1/2024 - 8/31/2024 Oct 10, 2024 11:48AM 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 SUPPLIES 366.34
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 ADVERTISING-JUNE 67.36
55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 RESIDENTIAL PLANS EXAMINER - JUNE 247.00 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 RECONCILING ITEMS FROM PRIOR PERIOD 7.66 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 RECONCILING CREDITS FROM NEXT STATEMENT 199.47- 55214 WELLS FARGO 08/04/2024 TRAVELCHARGE TO BE REIMBURSED- JUNE 100.54 Total 55214: 29,981.42
Grand Totals: 2,427,297.66
Report Criteria:
Report type: GL detail
31
BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: October 15, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Matthew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Lisa Rossi, Administrative Services Director
Kenneth Stiles, Finance Manager
TITLE: ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITOR’S REPORTS FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AUDIT ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Required Communications and Memorandum of Internal Control reports from the Fiscal Year 2022-23 independent auditor.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with the acceptance of this item.
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:
This recommendation supports the Infrastructure and Environment and Fiscal Sustainability Elements of the Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND:
For fiscal year ending on June 30, 2023, the City selected Maze and Associates to perform the annual independent audit. The audit concluded with the final financial statements and the delivery of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) to Council on December 5, 2023.
In addition to the ACFR, the auditor has issued reports for Council acceptance. These reports include:
• Required Communications
• Memorandum of Internal Control
These reports detail any audit findings during the Fiscal Year 2022-23 audit. Both reports are attached for Council acceptance.
32
DISCUSSION:
Required Communications
This report is required under generally accepted auditing standards to inform governing bodies of any significant accounting-related matters, challenges faced during the audit, and any disagreements with management. It ensures that the City Council is aware of the key aspects of the audit process and any issues that might have arisen.
The audit found no material financial misstatements, difficulties, or disagreements with management.
Memorandum of Internal Control
This report focuses on any material weaknesses identified during the audit but does not offer a comprehensive evaluation of the City's internal control system. In line with professional auditing standards, it outlines any observed deficiencies and offers recommendations for potential improvements.
The audit for the current fiscal year did not uncover any material weaknesses, and prior recommendations have been implemented.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Required Communications for the Year Ended June 30, 2023
2. Memorandum of Internal Control for the Year Ended June 30, 2023 33 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 2023
34 This Page Left Intentionally Blank
35 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Required Communications ................................................................................................................................ 1 Significant Audit Matters:
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices ................................................................................... 1 Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit ........................................................................... 2 Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements ...................................................................................... 2 Disagreements with Management .................................................................................................... 2 Management Representations ............................................................................................................ 3 Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants ................................................. 3 Other Audit Findings or Issues .......................................................................................................... 3 Other Matters ............................................................................................................................................ 3 36 This Page Left Intentionally Blank
37 REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS
To the City Council of
The City of Half Moon Bay, California
We have audited the basic financial statements of the City of Half Moon Bay for the year ended June 30, 2023. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated May 1, 2023. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.
Significant Audit Matters
Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices
Accounting Policies - Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the City are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. The following pronouncements became effective, but did not have a material effect on the financial statements:
GASB 91 – Conduit Debt Obligations
GASB 94 – Public-Private and Public-Public Partnerships and Availability Payment Arrangements
GASB 96 – Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements GASB 99 – Omnibus 2022, paragraphs 11-25
Unusual Transactions, Controversial or Emerging Areas - We noted no transactions entered into by the City during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.
Accounting Estimates - Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the City’s financial statements were:
Estimated Fair Value of Investments: As of June 30, 2023, the City held approximately $50.1 million of cash and investments as measured by fair value as disclosed in Note 2 to the financial statements. Fair value is essentially market pricing in effect as of June 30, 2023. These fair values are not required to be adjusted for changes in general market conditions occurring subsequent to June 30, 2023.
1 38
Estimate of Depreciation: Management’s estimate of the depreciation is based on useful lives determined by management. These lives have been determined by management based on the expected useful life of assets as disclosed in Note 1 to the financial statements. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the depreciation estimate and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Estimate of Compensated Absences: Accrued compensated absences which are comprised of accrued vacation, holiday, and certain other compensating time is estimated using accumulated unpaid leave hours and hourly pay rates in effect at the end of the fiscal year as disclosed in Note 1 to the financial statements. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the accrued compensated absences and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Estimated Net Pension Liabilities and Pension-Related Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources: Management’s estimate of the net pension liabilities and deferred outflows/inflows of resources are disclosed in Note 8 to the financial statements and are based on actuarial studies determined by a consultant, which are based on the experience of the City. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Estimated Net OPEB Liabilities and Pension-Related Deferred Outflows and Inflows of Resources: Management’s estimate of the net OPEB liabilities and deferred outflows/inflows of resources are disclosed in Note 9 to the financial statements and are based on actuarial studies determined by a consultant, which are based on the experience of the City. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
Disclosures - The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.
Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Management has corrected all such misstatements. In addition, none of the misstatements detected as a result of audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each opinion unit’s financial statements taken as a whole.
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely uncorrected misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. We have no such misstatements to report to the City Council.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.
2 39
Management Representations
We have requested certain representations from management that are included in a management representation letter dated October 16, 2023.
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the City’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.
Other Audit Findings or Issues
We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the City’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.
Other Matters
We applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information that accompanies and supplements the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the required supplementary information and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the required supplementary information.
We were engaged to report on the supplementary information that accompanies the financial statements, but is not required supplementary information. With respect to this supplementary information, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves.
We were not engaged to report on the Introductory and Statistical Sections which accompany the financial statements, but are not required supplementary information. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them.
******
This information is intended solely for the use of City Council and management and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Pleasant Hill, California
October 16, 2023
3 40
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
41 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 2023
42 This Page Left Intentionally Blank
43 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
For the Year Ended June 30, 2023
Table of Contents
Page
Memorandum on Internal Control ................................................................................................................... 1 Schedule of Other Matters ....................................................................................................................... 3 Status of Prior Year Other Matters .......................................................................................................... 9 44 This Page Left Intentionally Blank
45 MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
To the City Council of
The City of Half Moon Bay, California
In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of the City of Half Moon Bay (City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2023, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses. In addition, because of inherent limitations in internal control, including the possibility of management override of controls, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected by such controls. Given these limitations during our audit, we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
Included in the Schedule of Other Matters are recommendations not meeting the above definitions that we believe are opportunities for strengthening internal controls and operating efficiency.
This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management, City Council, others within the organization, and agencies and pass-through entities requiring compliance with Government Auditing Standards, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Pleasant Hill, California
October 16, 2023
1 46
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
47 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
SCHEDULE OF OTHER MATTERS
NEW GASB PRONOUNCEMENTS OR PRONOUNCEMENTS NOT YET EFFECTIVE The following comment represents new pronouncements taking affect in the next few years. We cite them here to keep you informed of developments:
EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEARS 2022, 2023 and 2024:
GASB 99 – Omnibus 2022
The objectives of this Statement are to enhance comparability in accounting and financial reporting and to improve the consistency of authoritative literature by addressing (1) practice issues that have been identified during implementation and application of certain GASB Statements and (2) accounting and financial reporting for financial guarantees. The practice issues addressed by this Statement are as follows:
• Classification and reporting of derivative instruments within the scope of Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments, that do not meet the definition of either an investment derivative instrument or a hedging derivative instrument • Clarification of provisions in Statement No. 87, Leases, as amended, related to the determination of the lease term, classification of a lease as a short term lease, recognition and measurement of a lease liability and a lease asset, and identification of lease incentives • Clarification of provisions in Statement No. 94, Public-Private and Public-Public Partnerships and Availability Payment Arrangements, related to (a) the determination of the public-private and public-public partnership (PPP) term and (b) recognition and measurement of installment payments and the transfer of the underlying PPP asset
• Clarification of provisions in Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements, related to the subscription-based information technology arrangement (SBITA) term, classification of a SBITA as a short term SBITA, and recognition and measurement of a subscription liability
• Extension of the period during which the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is considered an appropriate benchmark interest rate for the qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness of an interest rate swap that hedges the interest rate risk of taxable debt • Accounting for the distribution of benefits as part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• Disclosures related to nonmonetary transactions
• Pledges of future revenues when resources are not received by the pledging government • Clarification of provisions in Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments, as amended, related to the focus of the government-wide financial statements
3 48
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
SCHEDULE OF OTHER MATTERS
GASB 99 – Omnibus 2022, (Continued)
• Terminology updates related to certain provisions of Statement No. 63, Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Position • Terminology used in Statement 53 to refer to resource flows statements.
The Requirements of this Statement are Effective as Follows:
The requirements in paragraphs 26–32 related to extension of the use of LIBOR, accounting for SNAP distributions, disclosures of nonmonetary transactions, pledges of future revenues by pledging governments, clarification of certain provisions in Statement 34, as amended, and terminology updates related to Statement 53 and Statement 63 are effective upon issuance.
The requirements in paragraphs 11–25 related to leases, PPPs, and SBITAs are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, and all reporting periods thereafter.
The requirements in paragraphs 4–10 related to financial guarantees and the classification and reporting of derivative instruments within the scope of Statement 53 are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2023, and all reporting periods thereafter.
Earlier application is encouraged and is permitted by individual topic.
How the Changes in This Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The requirements of this Statement will enhance comparability in the application of accounting and financial reporting requirements and will improve the consistency of authoritative literature. Consistent authoritative literature enables governments and other stakeholders to more easily locate and apply the correct accounting and financial reporting provisions, which improves the consistency with which such provisions are applied. The comparability of financial statements also will improve as a result of this Statement. Better consistency and comparability improve the usefulness of information for users of state and local government financial statements.
4 49
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
SCHEDULE OF OTHER MATTERS
EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 2023/24:
GASB 100 – Accounting for Changes and Error Corrections The primary objective of this Statement is to enhance accounting and financial reporting requirements for accounting changes and error corrections to provide more understandable, reliable, relevant, consistent, and comparable information for making decisions or assessing accountability.
This Statement defines accounting changes as changes in accounting principles, changes in accounting estimates, and changes to or within the financial reporting entity and describes the transactions or other events that constitute those changes. As part of those descriptions, for (1) certain changes in accounting principles and (2) certain changes in accounting estimates that result from a change in measurement methodology, a new principle or methodology should be justified on the basis that it is preferable to the principle or methodology used before the change. That preferability should be based on the qualitative characteristics of financial reporting—understandability, reliability, relevance, timeliness, consistency, and comparability. This Statement also addresses corrections of errors in previously issued financial statements.
This Statement prescribes the accounting and financial reporting for (1) each type of accounting change and (2) error corrections. This Statement requires that (a) changes in accounting principles and error corrections be reported retroactively by restating prior periods, (b) changes to or within the financial reporting entity be reported by adjusting beginning balances of the current period, and (c) changes in accounting estimates be reported prospectively by recognizing the change in the current period. The requirements of this Statement for changes in accounting principles apply to the implementation of a new pronouncement in absence of specific transition provisions in the new pronouncement. This Statement also requires that the aggregate amount of adjustments to and restatements of beginning net position, fund balance, or fund net position, as applicable, be displayed by reporting unit in the financial statements.
This Statement requires disclosure in notes to financial statements of descriptive information about accounting changes and error corrections, such as their nature. In addition, information about the quantitative effects on beginning balances of each accounting change and error correction should be disclosed by reporting unit in a tabular format to reconcile beginning balances as previously reported to beginning balances as restated.
Furthermore, this Statement addresses how information that is affected by a change in accounting principle or error correction should be presented in required supplementary information (RSI) and supplementary information (SI). For periods that are earlier than those included in the basic financial statements, information presented in RSI or SI should be restated for error corrections, if practicable, but not for changes in accounting principles.
5 50
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
SCHEDULE OF OTHER MATTERS
EFFECTIVE FISCAL YEAR 2024/25:
GASB 101 – Compensated Absences
The objective of this Statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by updating the recognition and measurement guidance for compensated absences. That objective is achieved by aligning the recognition and measurement guidance under a unified model and by amending certain previously required disclosures.
Recognition And Measurement
This Statement requires that liabilities for compensated absences be recognized for (1) leave that has not been used and (2) leave that has been used but not yet paid in cash or settled through noncash means. A liability should be recognized for leave that has not been used if (a) the leave is attributable to services already rendered, (b) the leave accumulates, and (c) the leave is more likely than not to be used for time off or otherwise paid in cash or settled through noncash means. Leave is attributable to services already rendered when an employee has performed the services required to earn the leave. Leave that accumulates is carried forward from the reporting period in which it is earned to a future reporting period during which it may be used for time off or otherwise paid or settled. In estimating the leave that is more likely than not to be used or otherwise paid or settled, a government should consider relevant factors such as employment policies related to compensated absences and historical information about the use or payment of compensated absences. However, leave that is more likely than not to be settled through conversion to defined benefit postemployment benefits should not be included in a liability for compensated absences.
This Statement requires that a liability for certain types of compensated absences—including parental leave, military leave, and jury duty leave—not be recognized until the leave commences. This Statement also requires that a liability for specific types of compensated absences not be recognized until the leave is used.
This Statement also establishes guidance for measuring a liability for leave that has not been used, generally using an employee’s pay rate as of the date of the financial statements. A liability for leave that has been used but not yet paid or settled should be measured at the amount of the cash payment or noncash settlement to be made. Certain salary-related payments that are directly and incrementally associated with payments for leave also should be included in the measurement of the liabilities.
With respect to financial statements prepared using the current financial resources measurement focus, this Statement requires that expenditures be recognized for the amount that normally would be liquidated with expendable available financial resources.
Notes To Financial Statements
This Statement amends the existing requirement to disclose the gross increases and decreases in a liability for compensated absences to allow governments to disclose only the net change in the liability (as long as they identify it as a net change). In addition, governments are no longer required to disclose which governmental funds typically have been used to liquidate the liability for compensated absences. 6 51
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
SCHEDULE OF OTHER MATTERS
GASB 101 – Compensated Absences (Continued)
How the Changes in this Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting The unified recognition and measurement model in this Statement will result in a liability for compensated absences that more appropriately reflects when a government incurs an obligation. In addition, the model can be applied consistently to any type of compensated absence and will eliminate potential comparability issues between governments that offer different types of leave.
The model also will result in a more robust estimate of the amount of compensated absences that a government will pay or settle, which will enhance the relevance and reliability of information about the liability for compensated absences.
7 52
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
53 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR OTHER MATTERS
2021-02 Timely Preparation & Submittal of Treasurer’s Reports The City’s investment policy that the Treasurer’s Reports be submitted to the City Council within 30 days of the end of the quarter.
During our testing of the Treasurer’s Reports for the quarters ending on December 31, 2020, March 31, 2021 and June 30, 2021, it was noted that they were prepared on April 29, 2021, May 5, 2021 and August 10, 2021, respectively.
It appears that the conditions listed above are due to staff oversight.
The City was not in compliance with its own Investment Policy.
We recommend that the City ensures that all Treasurer’s reports are being prepared and submitted to the City Council within 30 days of the quarter’s end as outlined in the Investment Policy.
Current Year Status: Implemented
9 54
CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
MEMORANDUM ON INTERNAL CONTROL
STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR OTHER MATTERS
2019-04: Timely Submission of Quarterly Treasurer’s Reports California Government Code 53646(b)(1) states “The quarterly report shall be so submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report”. The City’s Investment Policy states the Treasurer’s Report must be submitted to the City Council within 45 days of end of each quarter. To be an effective control, the Treasurer’s Report should be completed and submitted to City Council within the period stipulated in the Investment Policy.
We noted the December 31, 2018 Treasurer’s Report was not submitted to City Council until April 2, 2019, which was 92 days after month end.
It appeared the overlook and delay were caused by the Finance’s understaffing.
Untimely submission of the Treasurer’s Report is not in compliance with either the City’s Investment Policy or California Code; In addition, the City’s investment policy should not be less restrictive than the California Government Code.
We recommend the City to update the Investment Policy to be consistent with the California Code, and submit the Treasurer’s Reports to City Council in a timely manner.
Current Year Status: Implemented
10 55
BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
AGENDA REPORT
For meeting of: October 15, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
VIA: Mathew Chidester, City Manager
FROM: Steve McHarris, Interim Community Development Director Scott Phillips, Senior Planner
TITLE: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY THE COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AT 2800 CHAMPS ELYSEE BLVD, FILE NO. PDP-17-055
______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION:
Either: 1) deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution; OR 2) grant the appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution, and approve the proposed residence subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
STRATEGIC ELEMENT:
This action supports the Inclusive Governance Element of the Strategic Plan.
DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project includes the construction of a 4,710 square foot two-story single-family residence on a triangular 31,709 square foot lot. A two-car garage is connected to the residence by a breezeway and courtyard between the two buildings. Extensive landscaping would be installed within the large triangular lot. A large stormwater detention basin would be installed behind the residence to detain on-site generated stormwater from the proposed residence improvements. Attachment 3 includes the proposed plans.
BACKGROUND:
On August 16, 2017, an application was filed requesting a Coastal Development Permit, Architectural Review to allow for the construction of a new single-family residence. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the August 14, 2018, April 9, 2019, and May 26, 2020, meetings, and continued to a date uncertain at each meeting. Following the 2020 56
Planning Commission meeting, a complete redesign of the proposed residence took place. The revised residential design was then reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) on two separate occasions (September 22 and December 15, 2022). The AAC was supportive of the revised site and architectural design at the second meeting. The project was then reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2023. The staff report for this meeting, which provides more background on the previous meetings, can be accessed here.
At the July 11, 2023, meeting, the Planning Commission discussion centered around concerns regarding drainage and potential flooding onto adjacent properties related and unrelated to the proposed project. Comments received by the Planning Commission are included in the adopted minutes here. The stormwater detention system proposed at the time included a series of drywells designed to overflow into vegetated areas in accordance with the City’s standard 10- year flood event analysis and criteria. The Commission continued the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to further evaluate the site related to stormwater containment and the applicability of the 10-year flood event analysis standard. The Commission also requested that staff evaluate the grading and drainage design and requested modifications to the proposed on-site grading and drainage to verify that the stormwater runoff from the project would be retained onsite. The Commission also identified concerns with project conformance with Land Use Plan (LUP) Policy 7-12 (Site-Specific Shoreline Hazards Evaluation) and other relevant policies within Chapter 7 of the LUP, including Policy 7-8 (Shoreline Hazards and New Development) and Policy 7-10 (Shoreline Hazard Mapping). The Commission was supportive of the revised architectural design and other components of the review.
On September 10, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the revised application. The Commission’s review was limited to information related to the Planning Commission’s request at the above-mentioned July 11, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the proposed project on a 3-0 vote, with two Planning Commissioners absent. The primary basis of the denial was the inability to make applicable findings within Chapter 7 of the LUP. Attachment 4 includes the signed Planning Commission resolution for denial. The staff report and attachments from the September 10 Planning Commission meeting are available here. The draft Planning Commission minutes are included in Attachment 5.
On September 13, 2024, the Planning Commission’s decision was appealed by the applicant for the project. The submitted appeal application and letter with grounds for appeal is included as Attachment 6.
DISCUSSION:
The appellant’s grounds for appeal are paraphrased (in bold) below, followed by staff responses.
The appellant’s complete statement is provided on the second page of Attachment 6.
A. Statement of Appeal
To support the denial of the project, the Planning Commission ignored substantial evidence supporting the project and City planning staff recommendations. 57
Response
Staff analyzed the project documents which included plans, technical analysis, City department review, City-initiated peer review, and LUP compliance within each staff report to the Planning Commission. Independent civil engineering peer review contracted by the City included technical analysis of the following documents:
• Civil Engineering Plans;
• Geotechnical Investigation, Including Soils Analysis; • Percolation Tests; and
• Previous Hydrological Analysis.
All peer review documents were presented to the Planning Commission within the staff report for the September 10, 2024, meeting. At this meeting, staff and the City’s peer review consultant responded to various questions regarding geotechnical, soils, and hydraulic analysis. In addition, the City’s peer review consultant responded to more specific technical questions regarding on- and off-site flooding concerns related to both the proposed project and the contributing off-site area.
In addition to the preparation of technical analysis documents related to the proposed project, the City’s Public Works Department initiated analysis of the watershed that surrounds the Pullman watercourse. Future hydrological modeling of the watershed will assist with the design of future drainage improvements.
B. Statement of Appeal
To support the denial of the project, the Planning Commission found that the project site is a coastal bluff in violation of LUP ESHA maps, the plain meaning of the HMB Zoning Code, existing intervening seaward properties and other physical development.
Even though the applicant’s property is not located on the beach, members of the Planning Commission insisted, even after staff repeatedly corrected them, that the applicant’s property was located on a “coastal bluff.”
Response
The LUP limits development on and near blufftops and beaches. These LUP policies require new blufftop development and redevelopment to demonstrate stability of the site over its anticipated life span without relying on protective devices; establish performance standards for construction adjacent to beachfronts and blufftops to prevent negative impacts such as runoff and erosion and to restore already-impacted areas; and require setbacks to prevent erosion impacts over the life of the structure.
During the Planning Commission review of the project on September 10, 2024, the Planning Commission did not conclude that the site was on a coastal bluff. Instead, the Commission was unclear if the project site was within proximity of blufftops and beaches.
58
The issue on appeal is whether these policies, such as Policy 7-1 (Hazard Avoidance) and Policy 7-12 (Site-Specific Shoreline Hazards Evaluation), apply or whether the proposed project site is sufficiently set back (i.e., more than 300 feet) from these sensitive areas such that the policies do not apply.
The LUP defines “Blufftop and beachfront development” as: “development within 300 feet landward of a bluff line or edge or 300 feet landward from the inland extent of the beach, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 13577(g) and (h). Typically, policies for beachfront development and beach setbacks apply where there are sand dunes or other low-lying areas rather than coastal bluffs.” LUP, page 7-17.1 LUP Figures 6-1, Habitat Types (sheets 1 of 3 and 2 of 3) and 6-2, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (sheets 1 of 3 and 2 of 3) identify the locations of coastal bluffs (Sea Cliffs) and dune habitat. The two applicable figures are available here. Based on these maps and the LUP definitions, Figure 1 below shows the proposed project site more than 300 feet away from the closest beach area to the west (see inland beach berm shown in red, which is located outside the 300-foot radius of the property). Figure 1, below, also shows that the proposed project site is 1,200 feet away from the closest sea cliffs.
1 California Code of Regulations Section 13577(g) and (h) provide:
(g) Beaches. Measure 300 feet landward from the inland extent of the beach. The back beach, or dry beach, if it exists, shall be included. The inland extent of the beach shall be determined as follows:
(1) from a distinct linear feature (e.g., a seawall, road, or bluff, etc.); (2) from the inland edge of the further inland beach berm as determined from historical surveys, aerial photographs, and other records or geological evidence; or (3) where a beach berm does not exist, from the further point separating the dynamic portion of the beach from the inland area as distinguished by vegetation, debris or other geological or historical evidence. (h) Coastal Bluffs. Measure 300 feet both landward and seaward from the bluff line or edge. Coastal bluff shall mean:
(1) those bluffs, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion; and
(2) those bluffs, the toe of which is not now or was not historically subject to marine erosion, but the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified in Public Resources Code Section 30603(a)(1) or (a)(2).
Bluff line or edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or sea cliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff face, the bluff line or edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge.
The termini of the bluff line, or edge along the seaward face of the bluff, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the inland facing portion of the bluff.
Five hundred feet shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations. 59
Policy 7-12 (Site-Specific Shoreline Hazards Evaluation) provides that new development proposed in areas that may be subject to shoreline hazards (i.e., within 300 feet landward of a bluff line or edge or 300 feet landward from the inland extent of the beach) shall require the submittal of a site-specific evaluation report of shoreline hazard risks over the anticipated life of the proposed development. Given that the proposed project site is well in excess of 300 feet from the closest bluff top or beachfront area, Policy 7-12 is not applicable to the project.
The proposed project is also in compliance with LUP policies related to Tsunami risk.
LUP Figure 7-1 shows the proposed project site as within the Tsunami inundation zone.
Pages 7-14 and 7-15 provide background on the multijurisdictional hazard evaluations that were conducted related to Tsunami risk and the designation of the Tsunami inundation zone. Policy 7-9 requires a Tsunami disclosure to be recorded against the proposed project property. The attached resolution for approval (Attachment 2) includes a condition of approval, requiring the disclosure of Tsunami hazards.
A substantial amount of discussion took place at the September 10, 2024, Planning Commission meeting related to Policy 7-1 (Hazard Avoidance). 2 Figure 6-2 of the Land
Use Plan identifies the area between the ocean and the existing coastal trail as sand dune habitat, and not coastal bluffs (Sea Cliffs). Per the definition in the Zoning Code, the terms “bluff” and “sea cliff” are used synonymously.3 Distances between the proposed project site, the dunes area, and the coastal trail were previously identified; however, some of the Commissioners were of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence in determining existence of coastal bluffs in the area of the dunes, and also if there was adequate distance from the project site development to the beach and bluff areas. Figure 1 below identifies the sea cliffs and dunes locations in relation to the proposed project site. Both of the terrestrial resources as well as the beach are more than 300 feet away from the proposed project site. Given the distance between the proposed project site and coastal bluffs, the project is in conformance with Policy 7-1. 2 Policy 7-1 (Hazard Avoidance) provides: All new development shall be sited, sized, and designed to minimize risks to life and property and protect coastal resources from geologic, flood, and fire hazard over the life of the development. Coastal resources to be protected may occur on- or off-site, upstream or downstream. Development standards shall anticipate that hazards may be compounded by climate change. 3 Section 18.38.020 C of the Zoning Code provides a definition of a bluff or cliff as a scarp or steep face of rock, sediment or soil resulting from erosion, faulting, or folding of the land mass with a vertical relief of ten feet or more.
60
Figure 1 Proposed project site in green with a 300-foot buffer shown in blue and the approximate locations of Sea Cliffs and Dune Habitat identified in Figure 6-2 of the LUP. The red line indicates the inland beach berm and the transition from beach to dunes habitat.
Finally, Policy 6-17 (Terrestrial ESHA Buffer Zones) requires a 100-foot buffer between dunes habitat and new development. Figure 1 identifies the proposed project site as more than 300 feet away from the nearest mapped dunes habitat; thus, Policy 6-17 does not impose any additional requirements.
C. Statement of Appeal
To support the denial of the project, the Planning Commission found that the property is subject to 100-year flood policies despite the fact the record explicitly demonstrates that it is not mapped as such in the LUP.
Response
Figure 7-1 of the City’s certified LUP identifies areas of the City that are subject to sea level rise, tsunami inundation, as well as the 100-year flood zones. The proposed project site is identified within the figure as within the tsunami inundation zone but outside of sea level rise areas, and outside of the 100-year flood zone. The proposed project parcel was originally created in 2012 when the City Council approved the tentative parcel map as part of a four-lot subdivision. An Initial Study was prepared that evaluated potential impacts from the subdivision. Conclusions within the Initial Study noted that the all four Sea Cliff
Dunes
Inland
Beach
Berm
61
subdivision parcels are not within a a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. In addition, the four subdivision parcels are within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, and that no additional analysis was required. The Initial Study, dated October 2011 is attached as an informational exhibit (Attachment 7). There is no new information changing this conclusion.
Attachment 1 includes the approved Planning Commission resolution for denial. Noncompliance findings with Policies 7-51 (Flood Hazard Avoidance for New Development) and 7-57 (Flood Protection Evaluation) are included in the resolution supporting the denial, both of which relate to potential flooding on the proposed project and not the 100-year flood zone designation of the property.
D. Statement of Appeal
Since this appeal is the 8th public hearing for this project, Half Moon Bay is in violation of the 5-hearing rule under government code section 65905.5 and the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission post haste and approve the project without further study or delay.
Response
Staff confirms that the review of the appeal will be the 8th public hearing since application submittal. Two of the Planning Commission public hearings took place prior to the effective date of the SB 330, the legislation enacting Government Code section 65905.5. Therefore, the City Council appeal hearing is the 6th meeting under the 5- hearing rule of SB 330. Per the 5-hearing rule, the City Council is required to either uphold or deny the appeal at this meeting.
NOTICING AND PUBLIC INPUT:
Prior to the City Council meeting, a legal notice was published in the San Mateo County Daily Journal, notices were mailed to residents within 300 feet of the proposed project site, and the site was also posted notifying the community of this item. Prior to packet distribution, one email and one comment letter was received with comments related to the project (Attachment 8).
CONCLUSION:
The appellant’s statements (Attachment 6) are included with this report. After extensive discussion to either approve the proposed project with conditions of approval (B5 and B6 in Attachment 2 require further hydrological analysis to verify compliance with LUP policies related to flood hazards) or deny the project, the Planning Commission voted 3-0 to deny the requested Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review, due to non-compliance with LUP Flood Hazard Policy 7-51 and LUP Flood Protection Policy 7-57.
In conclusion, the City Council’s options include: 1) deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s decision, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the 62
draft resolution; OR 2) grant the appeal, reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, based upon the Findings and Evidence contained in Exhibit A of the draft resolution, and approve the proposed residence subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. With Option 2, the City Council also has the option of adding or modifying the Conditions of Approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution for Denial with Findings and Evidence, Exhibit A
2. Draft Resolution for Approval with Findings and Evidence, Exhibit A and Conditions of Approval, Exhibit B
3. 2800 Champs Elysee Blvd Plans (available online)
4. Planning Commission Signed Resolution for Denial
5. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 10, 2024
6. Application for Appeal and Grounds for Appeal, dated September 13, 2024
7. North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project Initial Study, October 2011 (Informational)
8. Comments Received before October 11, 2024 2pm
63 Resolution No. C-2024-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,710 SQUARE-FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 2800 CHAMPS ELYSEE BOULEVARD IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION (APN 048-133-060) WHEREAS, an application was submitted requesting approval of Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review to allow the construction of a new 4,710 square-foot two-story, single-family residence at 2800 Champs Elysee Boulevard in the Planned Unit Development Zoning District and the Stoloski/Gonzalez Planned Development District General Plan designation (APN: 048-133-060) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the application have been followed as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) conducted duly noticed public design review sessions on September 22, 2022, and December 15, 2022, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, at the second meeting, the AAC was supportive of the revised design and had only minor suggestions for design changes, which were integrated into the project design as feasible; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously conducted duly noticed public hearings for the Project on August 14, 2018, April 9, 2019, May 26, 2020, and July 11, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 10, 2024, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony presented for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was not able to make the required findings to approve the requested permits and therefore did not approve the requested permits and project, as set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, an application for appeal was filed on September 13, 2024, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the required findings for denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay City Council at a duly noticed public hearing held October 15, 2024.
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 15th day of October 2024, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:
64 Ayes, Councilmembers:
Noes, Councilmembers:
Absent, Councilmembers:
Abstain, Councilmembers:
Attest: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
65 EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE
City Council Resolution C-24-__
PDP-17-055
Coastal Development Permit – Findings for Denial
The required Coastal Development Permit for this project may be approved or conditionally approved only after the approving authority has made the findings listed in Municipal Code Section 18.20.070. The Planning Commission cannot make one of those required findings (i.e., the development as proposed or as modified by conditions, conforms to the Local Coastal Program) for the following reasons:
1. Local Coastal Program – The development as proposed or as modified by conditions, conforms to the Local Coastal Program.
LUP Policy 7-51. Flood Hazard Avoidance for New Development: Ensure that no new permitted development causes or contributes to flood hazards.
Non-Compliance: The Planning Commission lacked sufficient information to determine that the project would not cause or contribute to flood hazards.
LUP Policy 7-57. Flood Protection Evaluation: Require new development proposals to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent or downstream properties from all proposed structural flood protection measures to ensure that the flood protection measures will not create adverse direct and/or cumulative impacts either on-site or off-site.
Non-Compliance: The proposed project has not evaluated potential impacts to adjacent properties from its proposed structural flood protection measures.
Environmental Review – Finding
CEQA – The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Evidence: Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Denied projects are statutorily exempt from CEQA. 66 ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. C-2024-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY GRANTING THE APPEAL,
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND APPROVING THE COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,710 SQUARE-FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE ON A 31,699 SQUARE-FOOT LOT AT 2800
CHAMPS ELYSEE BOULEVARD IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION (APN 048-133-060) WHEREAS, an application was submitted requesting approval of Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review to allow the construction of a new 4,710 square-foot two-story, single-family residence on a 31,699 square-foot lot at 2800 Champs Elysee Boulevard in the Planned Unit Development Zoning District and the Stoloski/Gonzalez Planned Development District General Plan designation (APN: 048-133-060) (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the application have been followed as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) conducted duly noticed public design review sessions on September 22, 2022, and December 15, 2022, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, at the second meeting, the AAC was supportive of the revised design and had only minor suggestions for design changes, which were integrated into the project design as feasible; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings on August 14, 2018, April 9, 2019, May 26, 2020, July 11, 2023, and September 10, 2024, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Local Coastal Land Use Plan when reviewing this project and determined that the project did not comply with certain applicable policies of the Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the municipal code, including the zoning ordinance when reviewing this project and determined that the project complied with the applicable regulations of the municipal code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony presented for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was not able to make the required findings for the requested Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review and therefore did not approve the requested permits and project, as set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution; and 67
Resolution C-24-__
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the Planning Commission denied the requested permits by a 3-0 vote. Two of the Planning Commissioners were absent; and WHEREAS, an application for appeal was filed on September 13, 2024, appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the required findings for granting the appeal and reversing the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the mitigation measures associated with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program previously adopted with the approval of the Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for the property is adequate for evaluating and mitigating all potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of the new residence and associated improvements that are subject of the requested Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review. The construction of the new home is also categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per California Code of Regulations, Section 15303(a) – construction of one singlefamily residence; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the required findings for approval of the project, set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council takes the following actions:
1. Finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the Project as proposed and mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Approves the Project, based upon the Findings in Exhibit A and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit B.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay City Council at a duly noticed public hearing held October 15, 2024.
***************************************************************** I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted on the 15th day of October 2024, by the City Council of Half Moon Bay by the following vote:
Ayes, Councilmembers:
Noes, Councilmembers:
Absent, Councilmembers:
Abstain, Councilmembers:
Attest: APPROVED:
___________________________ _____________________________ Jessica Blair, City Clerk Joaquin Jimenez, Mayor
68
Resolution C-24-__
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE
City Council Resolution C-24-____
PDP-17-055
Coastal Development Permit – Findings for Approval
The required Coastal Development Permit for this project may be approved or conditionally approved only after the approving authority has made the following findings per Municipal Code Section 18.20.070:
1. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP) – The development as proposed or as modified by conditions, conforms to the Local Coastal Program as certified by the California Coastal Commission on April 15, 2021.
Compliance: The project consists of construction of a new single-family residence on an infill site in an existing neighborhood where all public services and infrastructure are provided or can be easily extended to the site, including sewer, water, gas, and electric utilities. With the implementation of the required mitigation measures, the project conforms to City requirements, will not impact coastal resources, and is consistent with the policies of the City’s Land Use Plan (LUP).
LUP Policy 7-51. Flood Hazard Avoidance for New Development: Ensure that no new permitted development causes or contributes to flood hazards.
Compliance: The proposed development is not within a flood zone. Stormwater runoff from the new development will be contained onsite within the new detention basin along the western side of the property.
LUP Policy 7-57. Flood Protection Evaluation: Require new development proposals to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent or downstream properties from all proposed structural flood protection measures to ensure that the flood protection measures will not create adverse direct and/or cumulative impacts either on-site or off-site.
Compliance: Stormwater runoff from the new development will be contained onsite.
Conditions of approval B5, B6, B22 and B23 require the stormwater detention system to be evaluated, modeled and reviewed to verify that stormwater runoff from the new development will be contained on the site.
LUP Policy 2-71. Residential Siting and Design Standards: Require development of new and remodeled structures within established neighborhoods to be sited and designed to be:
a. Compatible within each unique neighborhood area, including infrastructure and streetscape provisions such as walkways, street trees, and parking. 69
Resolution C-24-__
b. Scaled and appropriate for the limitations of non-conforming sites, such as smaller residences on substandard sized parcels and those that must accommodate natural resources, hazards, watercourses, coastal access, and visual resource requirements.
Compliance: The proposed development is compatible within its neighborhood area and has been designed to avoid intrusion into habitat buffers.
Coastal Act 30240(b) and LUP Policy 6-12: Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.
Compliance: The Pullman watercourse runs along the northern boundary of the subject property. The proposed project has been designed to comply with the Riparian Buffer requirement within the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan/Zoning Ordinance, which requires a 30-foot setback from the centerline of this span of the Pullman watercourse.
Additionally, an update to the Biological Resource Assessment was prepared for the site and surrounding area and circulated to the resource agencies for a 45-day comment period. The biologist reviewed a copy of the plans. The report concluded that the mitigation measures included in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration are adequate for mitigating any potential effects on biological resources by the residential project. Given the distance of the subject improvements from the Pullman watercourse and the implementation of the required mitigation measures for biological resources, any significant impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas would be avoided.
LUP Policy 6-53. Non-Riparian Watercourse Buffers: Where a watercourse lacks riparian vegetation, the boundary of the watercourse is defined by the top of bank or similar confining topography. Proposed development along a non-riparian watercourse lacking riparian vegetation or other sensitive habitat value as determined by a site specific study, including man-made drainage ditches (e.g. non-riparian portions of Pullman Watercourse) but excluding active agriculture irrigation ditches, shall provide a minimum 20-foot buffer from the top of bank to provide space for potential meander belts and natural erosion and flooding hazards. The buffer requirements in Policies 6-49 and 6-50 shall apply to proposed development along a watercourse where a site-specific study identifies riparian vegetation or other sensitive habitat value.
Compliance: A non-riparian watercourse feature is located on the north side of the subject property. The proposed project has been designed to comply with the non-riparian watercourses buffer requirements of the LUP (20 feet from top of bank) as well as the Zoning Ordinance buffer requirements (30 feet from the centerline). Additionally, a Biological Resource Assessment and update were prepared for the site and surrounding area and included recommended mitigation measures. The mitigation measures included with the adopted CEQA document have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval, including condition A8 requiring buffer protection, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 70
Resolution C-24-__
Program in order to reduce or eliminate any potential impacts on biological resources to a less than significant level. No additional adverse impacts were identified during the most recent biological analysis that took place. Given the distance of the proposed improvements from the non-riparian watercourse, and the implementation of the required mitigation measures for biological resources, any significant impacts on environmentally sensitive habitat areas would be avoided.
LUP Policy 6-76: Green Infrastructure: Promote and prioritize the use of Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and on-site infiltration to create green infrastructure for treating and reducing stormwater runoff. In and adjacent to ESHA, use resource-dependent green infrastructure projects for natural restoration purposes and provision of buffer areas to allow for natural erosion, evolution of natural drainage flows, and sediment transport balance.
Compliance: Several LID strategies have been integrated into the project, including stormwater runoff onto vegetated areas away from the Pullman watercourse. Additionally, grading has been limited to what is needed for the new home and stormwater detention basin installation. No grading would take place within the non-riparian watercourse buffer.
Best Management Practices would be implemented throughout construction. Policy compliance is demonstrated through the limited grading, in combination with the best management practices and stormwater detention.
LUP Policy 9-2: Scenic Resource Protection: New development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean, to minimize the alteration of natural land form, to be visually compatible with the character of its setting, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
Compliance: The project will require limited grading for the construction of the home foundation and flatwork including the driveway. The proposed development is visually compatible with the character of its neighborhood setting. The project has been sited and designed to protect views of the ocean from Cabrillo Highway and views of the ridgeline from the California Coastal Trail.
LUP Policy 9-6: Site Planning and Design for New Development: Require new development to be subject to design review to ensure it is sited and designed to protect public views of scenic and visual resource areas and to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Measures to be considered may include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Siting development in the least visible portion of the site; b. Breaking up the mass of new structures;
c. Designing structures to blend into the surrounding natural landscape; d. Restricting building maximum size and height;
e. Clustering or distributing development;
f. Incorporating landscape elements and screening; and
g. Conformance with any adopted design guidelines.
71
Resolution C-24-__
Compliance: The project site is located within a designated visual resource area. The proposed residence is substantially similar to the bulk and mass of other developed residential lots within the Miramar neighborhood. The architecture and site improvements have been subject to design review by approval by the Planning Commission, with recommendations from Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC). As shown in the evidence provided for Architectural Site and Design Review findings below, the project is in compliance with the Design Review Findings. The proposed garage is attached to the main dwelling through an integral breezeway, resulting in a clustered development format. The mass, scale, and clustered development format will not impact the visual resource areas nearest this project site.
LUP Policy 9-10. Fences, Walls, and Landscaping: Ensure that fences, walls, and landscaping shall not block public views of or from scenic and visual resource areas including along scenic corridors, at parks and beaches, and other scenic public viewing areas through height restrictions and required landscape maintenance.
Compliance: The project includes low-lying landscape walls around the permitter of the new home. Split rail fence would be constructed along the riparian buffer edge and wrapped around the rear of the lot to limit access to the Further Restricted Area. Drought-tolerant, coastal-compatible landscaping has been included in the comprehensive landscape plan, which further supports compliance with this site planning and design policy of the LUP.
LUP Policy 9-12. Town Boulevard Scenic Corridor: Require that new development in close proximity to or easily visible from the Town Boulevard scenic corridor, including Highways 1 and 92:
a. Protects views of visual resource areas as seen from the Town Boulevard, including views to the ocean, upland slopes (i.e. minimizes intrusions into the ridgeline), and the historic Johnston House;
b. Incorporates design standards such as screening of commercial parking areas and landscaping provisions; and
c. Is visually compatible with the surrounding land and development.
Update the IP with additional standards for new development along the Town Boulevard based on additional study of the scenic corridor. Assessment should, at a minimum, consider views of visual resource areas from the perspective of existing and potential development along the Town Boulevard and identify scenic segments along Highway 1 and 92, including views of the ridgelines and other visual resource areas. Development standards should address, at a minimum, appropriate building heights and setbacks, longest wall lines, minimum space between buildings, and streetscape design.
Compliance: The project has been reviewed by the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) on two occasions. The ACC considered story pole installations and the potential impact of the home design relative to the Town Boulevard Scenic Corridor and views from the 72
Resolution C-24-__
California Coastal Trail. The conclusion was that the design is substantially compatible with surrounding land and development. The custom home was designed with unique site conditions on mind, including the angular shape of the lot and the mature Cypress trees along the southern property line.
LUP Policy 9-16. Broad Ocean Views: Ensure that areas providing broad, public ocean views, including as designated on Figure 9-1, are preserved and enhanced in association with new development projects. In such areas, structures shall be sited and designed to avoid obstruction of broad, public ocean views, shall not exceed 15 feet in height unless an increase in height would not obstruct public views to the ocean or would facilitate clustering of development so as to result in greater view protection, and shall ensure that any proposed landscaping, when mature, will not obstruct public views to the ocean.
Compliance: The new home is screened from view from Cabrillo Highway by the two neighboring homes to the east. Both neighboring homes are two story and one is currently under construction. Broad ocean views would not be impacted by the new home.
LUP Policy 9-17. California Coastal Trail Views. Ensure that views of the ocean, bluffs, upland slopes, and ridgelines from the California Coastal Trail are protected, particularly in areas adjacent to substantially undeveloped Planned Developments including Surf Beach/Dunes Beach, Venice Beach, West of Railroad, and North Wavecrest. Require sufficient setbacks, height limits, and other design standards for any new development permitted near the trail to minimize impacts to visual resources.
Compliance: The project will not obstruct ridgeline views from the California Coastal Trail as demonstrated by the story pole installation. The height and location of the installed story poles were verified by a licensed surveyor as demonstrated by a submitted verification letter from the surveyor and applicant.
Coastal Act 30244: Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.
Compliance: According to the Land Use Plan, the proposed single-family residence is located in an area identified as sensitive for archaeological resources; however, during environmental review, no known archeological resources were identified on the site or adjacent properties. If cultural resources or paleontological resources are unexpectedly encountered during subsurface excavation, the permit has been conditioned to require that construction halt until the find can be evaluated and appropriate mitigation identified.
LUP Policy 2-41: Continued Development in Substantially Developed Planned Developments. Allow continued development within substantially developed PDs provided that additional development falls within the maximum allowed buildout as established in the 73
Resolution C-24-__
Land Use Plan and certified master plan for the PD. Additional development may be allowed as follows:
a. Remaining parcels or phases as consistent with the approved master plan; b. Minor modification including changes of use of and additions to existing development as consistent with allowed uses and the siting and design requirements of the approved master plan and compatible with the existing development.
Compliance: The project is located within the Stoloski/Gonzalez Planned Development (PD) District. The entire PD site has been planned as a unit through the Subdivision Map, Planned Unit Development Plan, and subsequent settlement agreement that established development standards for the entire Stoloski/Gonzalez PD. The new residence and associated improvements conform to the development chapter and related policies of the LUP. The subject property is one of four lots within the Stoloski/Gonzalez Planned Development. The new residence and site improvements conform to the development standards that were adopted with the Planned Development.
2. Growth Management System – The development is consistent with the annual population limitation system established in the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Evidence: The proposed site has been granted a valid Measure D Certificate for the construction of one single-family residence; therefore, the project conforms to the requirements of the City’s growth management system.
3. Zoning Provisions – The development is consistent with the use limitations and property development standards of the base district as well as the other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Evidence: The proposed residence conforms to all requirements of the approved PUD Development Standards associated with the subdivision approval, including lot coverage, setbacks, height, and parking, and to the Zoning Code’s riparian buffer requirements.
4. Adequate Services – The proposed development will be provided with adequate services and infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program.
Evidence: The site is located adjacent to an existing developed neighborhood and utilities and services are currently provided to the site. The utilities and roadway were extended from the City of Naples Subdivision shortly after the Final Parcel Map was recorded. As conditioned, a sewer permit through Granada Community Services District is required.
5. California Coastal Act – Any development to be located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
74
Resolution C-24-__
Evidence: The proposed project is located between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea. The proposal is to construct a new single-family home and associated improvements on a vacant lot adjacent to an existing developed neighborhood. Adequate public access to the Coastal Trail, Naples Beach, and the coast is available approximately 300 feet away from the subject property, along Washington Boulevard. Therefore, sufficient access to coastal resources from the subject property and surrounding area is available as required by Chapter 18.40 of the Zoning Ordinance and the project would not restrict public access or recreation opportunities.
General Plan Housing Element Conformance – Findings for Approval The project is consistent with the Housing Element as it relates to the residential use of the site.
Evidence: The subject property is identified as a site suitable for residential development within the Cycle 5 Housing Element and the Cycle 6 draft Housing Element.
Architectural Site and Design Review – Findings
The required Architectural and/or Site and Design Review for this project may be approved or conditionally approved only after the approving authority has made the findings per Municipal Code Section 14.37.040. In making these findings, the Planning Commission has considered the design approval criteria set forth in Municipal Code Section 14.37.035.
1. That such buildings, structures, planting, paving and other improvements shall be so designed and constructed that they will not be of unsightly or obnoxious appearance to the extent that they will hinder the orderly and harmonious development of the city; Evidence: Zoning Code Section 18.06.010 states that the intent of the residential chapter is to establish residential districts and guide the orderly development within each district. It further states that the residential district regulations are intended to ensure provision of adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling by establishing reasonable development standards for the mass, scale, and location on a building site for all new residential construction and to achieve a high standard of site and building design and design compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed improvements have been designed in conformance with the requirements of the adopted PUD Development Standards. The proposed home, although large, is also in substantial conformance with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, the objectives of which include ensuring compatible design within existing neighborhood contexts. The development is also in scale with the site which is significantly larger than most others in the adjacent Miramar neighborhood.
2. That such buildings, structures, planting, paving and other improvements will not impair the desirability or opportunity to attain the optimum use and the value of the land and the 75
Resolution C-24-__
improvements, or otherwise impair the desirability of living or working conditions in the same or adjacent areas; and
Evidence: The proposed project has been designed in conformance with the requirements of the PUD (Stoloski/Gonzalez) Zoning District which are intended to ensure provision of adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling by establishing reasonable development standards for the mass, scale, and location on a building site within the fourparcel Stoloski/Gonzalez subdivision. The project is also in substantial conformance with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines, the objectives of which include maintaining strong property values, compatible neighborhoods, and a healthy environment.
3. The project has been designed in conformance and consistency with the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines (where applicable).
Evidence: The Single Family Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) encourage flexibility in architectural design to reflect the community’s eclectic character and seek to achieve compatible design within existing neighborhoods. The current project proposes a neotraditional design that is compatible with the existing pattern of development in the surrounding area in terms of building placement/orientation, massing, and materials and colors. The surrounding neighborhood can be characterized as having an eclectic mixture of architectural styles and features. This project in particular involves the construction of a new two-story custom home that reflects the triangular shape of the lot.
The proposed design completely screens the garage and vehicle parking from Champs Elysee Boulevard, consistent with Guidelines 2-11 and 2-12. “Deemphasize the garages’ presence as viewed from the public right-of-way. Situate detached garages to the side or rear of the house to diminish the prominence of the garage door.” Environmental Review – Finding
CEQA – The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the whole record before the Planning Commission (including the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Stoloski/Gonzalez subdivision and staff and consultant review of the proposed residence), there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that no subsequent environmental review is required because there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken that would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts requiring major revisions to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, and there is no new information that involves new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects that would require preparation of an EIR or a subsequent or supplemental Mitigated Negative 76
Resolution C-24-__
Declaration pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162.
Evidence: An Initial Study (IS) and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared and adopted for approval of the Stoloski/Gonzalez four-residential lot subdivision and associated Planned Unit Development Plan in conformance with the requirements of CEQA. The proposed residence is located on one of those four lots, conforms to the requirements of the Plan, and is required to comply with the mitigation measures in the MND as a condition of approval. City staff reviewed the proposed project and did not identify any adverse significant effects on the environment. The project biologist reevaluated the site and prepared an update to the biological resource evaluation. No changed circumstances or new impacts to biological resources were identified through the update process. The biologist concluded that the mitigation measures adopted with the previous MND are appropriate for the new house and site improvements. 77
Resolution C-24-__
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
City Council Resolution C-24-____
PDP-17-055
A. The following Conditions shall apply to the subject site:
1. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans entitled New Residence 2800 Champs Elysee Boulevard, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 with a City date stamp of March 30, 2023, except for any revisions required by this permit. The Community Development Director and City Engineer shall review any change in imperious surface area; and the Director shall review and may approve any deviation from the approved plans that is determined minor in nature. Any other change shall require the submittal of a major modification application and fees and shall be subject to a public hearing as required by Title 18. (Planning)
2. CONFORMANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The Community Development Director shall review and may approve any deviation from the Conditions of Approval that is determined minor in nature. Any other change shall require the submittal of a major modification application and fees and shall be subject to a public hearing as required by Title 18. (Planning)
3. CONFORMANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL CODE. No part of this approval shall be construed to permit a violation of any part of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Planning)
4. PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. This project shall comply with the previous conditions of approval including mitigation measures from PDP-009-10, Resolution C-04-12. (Planning)
5. DEED RESTRICTION. A deed restriction shall be prepared, reviewed by the Community Development Direct and City Attorney and recorded at the County Recorder’s Office. The deed restriction shall identify the Further Restriction Area as a no-build easement. The deed restriction shall further require ongoing maintenance of the split rail fencing along the southern edge of the riparian buffer. (Planning)
6. LIGHTING. All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded so that no light source is visible from outside the property, except as otherwise expressly approved. (Planning)
7. MAINTENENCE AND LIABILITY. It shall be the duty of the Property Owner(s) whose property is adjacent to any portion of a public street or place to maintain the project frontage in a safe and non-dangerous condition. Maintenance shall include removal and replacement of concrete to eliminate tripping hazards; and pruning and trimming of trees, shrubs, ground cover and other landscaping within the public right-of-way. The Property Owner has the 78
Resolution C-24-__
primary and exclusive duty to fund and perform such maintenance and repair, whether or not the City has notified the property owner of the need for such maintenance or repairs or has performed similar maintenance or repairs in the past, pursuant to §12.18.020 and §12.18.030 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Engineering)
8. NON-RIPARIAN BUFFER PROTECTION. The applicant/owner shall protect the non-riparian buffer from encroachments and inappropriate uses. A split rail fence shall be installed and permanently maintained to demarcate the non-riparian buffer on the project site. No development or uses, including but not limited to grading and landscaping, are to be installed or conducted within the 30 foot riparian buffer from the centerline of Pullman watercourse on the project site other than those types of developments or uses specifically allowed for, and only if permitted according to the standards of the Local Coastal Program. (Planning)
9. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. The applicant/owner shall ensure that all landscaped areas and/or fences are continuously maintained, and all plant material is maintained free of refuse and weeds and in a healthy growing condition. (Planning) B. The following Conditions shall be fulfilled prior to the issuance of building permits:
1. SIGNED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The applicant/owner shall submit a signed copy of the conditions of approval to the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. (Planning)
2. REQUIRED PLAN REVISIONS. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit revised plans providing the following:
a. Landscaping design and plans shall be updated to comply with the updated grading and drainage plans.
b. Solid railing along the east elevation balcony shall be modified to a glass railing. (Planning)
3. TSUNAMI DISCLOSURE AND DEED RESTRICTION. Prior to issuance of building permits, the permittee shall cause to be recorded a disclosure of hazard presence and a hold harmless clause against the property indemnifying the City from any harm caused to permitted development by tsunami inundation. The form of said disclosure and clause must be approved by the City Attorney. (Planning)
4. 30-FOOT EASEMENT. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner shall make an irrevocable offer to the City of dedication of an easement across the northerly 30 feet of the subject parcel, between Champs Elysee Boulevard to the east and State Parks land to the west. The purpose of the easement is to allow for possible future drainage improvements along the south side of the Pullman watercourse. The form and means of conveyance shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to 79
Resolution C-24-__
recording the easement at the San Mateo County Recorder and prior to issuance of the building permit. (Planning and Engineering)
5. HYDROLOGICAL MODELING. Prior to issuance of building permits and per the recommendations of the peer review that was conducted on the preliminary grading and utility plans, the permittee shall prepare a hydrological model showing the project will not have adverse effects on adjacent properties. If the hydrological model shows the project will have adverse effects on adjacent properties, permittee shall work with Planning and Engineering staff to address potential adverse drainage effects caused by the grading of the project prior to the issuance of building permits. (Planning and Engineering)
6. FLOOD PROTECTION. Hydrological modeling required per condition of approval B6 shall identify the potential 100 year flood event on the site. Per Policy 7-55 of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan, the finished floor elevation shall be at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood event. In the event that the finished floor is less than 2 feet above the 100-year flood event, the house design shall be modified to be at least 2 feet above the 100-year flood event and subject to minor and major architectural modification review per conditions of approval A1 and A2. (Planning and Engineering)
7. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. The applicant shall obtain any necessary approvals that may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make sure the project is in compliance with all of the Corps’ requirements. (Engineering)
8. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. The following impact fees shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of building permits in conformance with the City’s adopted Master Fee Schedule:
a) Sewer Connection Fee
b) Storm Drainage Fee
c) Capital Outlay Facilities Fee
d) Traffic Mitigation Fee
e) Park Facilities Fee (Planning and Engineering)
9. SCHOOL IMPACT FEES. The applicant shall provide proof of payment of required school Impact fees to Cabrillo Unified School District prior to issuance of building permits. (Building)
10. VALID MEASURE D CERTIFICATE. No building permit shall be issued unless the Measure D Certificate issued for the property has not expired and remains valid to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. (Planning)
11. PROJECT BIOLOGIST. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Director the name, company affiliation, and contact information of the project biologist who will oversee the construction. The project biologist shall be selected from the City’s List of Pre-approved Biological Consultants to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The applicant shall notify the Community Development Director in writing within 24 hours of any change in the project biologist. (Planning) 80
Resolution C-24-__
12. PROJECT BIOLOGIST REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLAN AND EXCLUSIONARY FENCING PLAN.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the project biologist shall review and approve the landscape plan and plant list, to ensure that the landscaping will not negatively impact sensitive habitat within the study area. Additionally, a temporary wildlife exclusionary fencing plan shall be prepared and reviewed by the biologist to confirm that the temporary exclusionary fencing plan is in compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. (Planning)
13. CONSTRUCTION PLANS. File Number PDP-17-055 and the Conditions of Approval for this project, as well as PDP-009-10, Resolution C-04-12 shall be provided on the cover page of the building permit application plan submittal. All plans, specifications, engineering calculations, diagrams, reports, and other data for construction of the building and required improvements shall be submitted with the appropriate permit application to the City’s Building and Engineering Divisions for review and approval. Computations and back-up data will be considered a part of the required plans. Structural calculations and engineering calculations shall be prepared, wet-stamped, and signed by an engineer or architect licensed by the State of California. The plans must show the location of the sewer connection and property line sewer cleanout. Construction plans shall indicate that there shall be no staging/storage of materials or any other use of the Pullman watercourse buffer area for construction purposes. (Planning)
14. PRE-CONSTRUCTION SITE MEETING. A pre-construction site inspection shall take place with City staff and the project construction representative to review the requirements of the biological surveys and mitigation measures and to review construction site management, including parking, construction hours, and other conditions of approval, before ground disturbance is authorized. (Planning, Building, Engineering)
15. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING. The permittee shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If the project includes 500 square feet or more of irrigated landscaping (new or rehabilitated) the permittee shall submit landscape and irrigation plans and an Outdoor Water Efficiency Checklist that demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance (Chapter 13.04 of the Municipal Code) prior to issuance of building permits to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. (Planning)
16. SURVEY REQUIRED. Submit a detailed topographic/site boundary survey certified by a licensed surveyor with building application plans. The survey shall include a baseline elevation datum point on, or close to the construction site, indicating existing grade of the datum. This datum point shall be permanent, marked, shall remain fixed in the field, and shall not be disturbed throughout the building process. Examples of datum points include:
fire hydrants, manhole covers, survey markers, and street curbs. This datum point shall be shown on all site plans including revised/resubmitted plans. The survey must show the 81
Resolution C-24-__
footprint and roof plan of the proposed residence and identify the existing grade elevations at the corners and roof ridgeline of the residence. (Building)
17. EVIDENCE OF WATER CONNECTION CAPACITY. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the permittee shall submit a letter from Coastside County Water District certifying that the subject site has an adequately-sized water connection for this approved project. (Building)
18. EVIDENCE OF SEWER CONNECTION CAPACITY- GRANADA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT.
The permittee shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Granada Community Services District. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the permittee shall demonstrate issuance of a sewer permit from Granada Community Services District. (Building)
19. ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. The proposed project, including street improvements, shall comply with State of California and federal (ADA) accessibility standards and with the line of sight requirements of Half Moon Bay Zoning Code Section 18.06.040(B). (Building)
20. LOT GRADING, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE STORAGE. No lot site grading, preparation, storage, or placement of construction materials, equipment, or vehicles shall take place prior to issuance of a building permit. Any earth movement on or off the site in excess of 50 cubic yards shall require the submittal of a grading plan for review by the City Engineer and issuance of a grading permit. Lot Grading includes, but is not limited to, any leveling, scraping, clearing, or removal of lot surface area. Materials, Equipment, and Vehicles include, but are not limited to:
1. All masonry, wood, and steel construction materials;
2. All construction-related equipment and storage containers; and
3. All construction-related vehicles, including temporary trailers.
4. As part of the Grading Permit the following will also apply. a. Maintenance. Maintain adjacent streets in a neat, clean, dust free and sanitary condition at all times and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Street Restoration. Any damage caused to the adjacent streets shall comply to approved engineering standards for street restoration.
c. Visual Inspection. Prior to commencement of work, an initial visual inspection of the existing street condition will take place between contractor and public works inspector. Upon completion of work, a final visual inspection of the street condition will take place. Any damage caused to the street will require restoration per approved engineering standards.
d. BMPS. Adhere to all relevant BMP’s per California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP handbook, latest edition.
e. All trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials shall be covered with tarpaulins or equal.
82
Resolution C-24-__
f. Stockpiles. Stockpiles of soil and other construction related materials must be protected. Cover stockpiles with plastic until material is moved offsite. g. Dust Control. Always provide sufficient dust control measures for the entire project.
h. Haul Route. Submit Haul route for approval, showing where and how the excavated soil will be transported off site. Transportation of the exported soil through the existing neighborhood to the north is not allowed. i. Caltrans Legal Truck Access. If soils transport utilizes Hwy 1, verify with Caltrans Legal Truck Access for any requirements you may need when transporting on Hwy 1.
j. Notification Letters. Contractor shall provide written notifications to all affected residents and property owners, Police and Fire, a minimum of one week prior to the start of work. (Engineering)
NOTE: The owner will be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage system.
21. COPPER BUILDING ELEMENTS. The building plans shall specify that all copper building elements will be pre-patinated at the factory, or if patination will occur on the site, the plans shall identify best management practices in conformance with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Requirements for Architectural Copper, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering)
22. LOT DRAINAGE PLAN AND ON-SITE DETENTION Construction plans submitted for building permits shall include a Lot Drainage Plan showing how the surface runoff is retained on the site. Plans shall include design details and supporting calculations for storm water detention on-site for the additional run-off from a twenty five year frequency storm of two hour duration. Plans shall show how the rear and side yards will properly drain to an approved BMP facility, and how the finished grades on the property relate to the existing grades on adjacent property. Predevelopment runoff from adjacent parcels shall be addressed in the lot drainage plan and incorporated into the on-site detention system. The Plan shall include pad elevation, finished floor elevation, site high and low points, drainage swales, area drains, and existing grade at adjacent property. The permittee shall provide appropriate measures to discharge the flood waters from any unfinished floor areas. (Engineering)
23. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT-TREATMENT (FOR NON-REGULATED PROJECTS). Nonregulated projects consist of single-family residences and other small projects that create and/or replace less than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. Runoff from the site may not enter into Pullman watercourse. Construction plans submitted for building permits shall include a storm water management-treatment plan showing implementation of at least one of the six Low Impact Development (LID) measures listed below:
a. Direct runoff into cisterns or rain barrels and use rainwater for irrigation or other non-potable use;
83
Resolution C-24-__
b. Direct roof runoff into vegetated areas;
c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios into vegetated areas; d. Direct runoff from driveways and /or uncovered parking lots into vegetated areas; e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces; or f. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. (Engineering)
g. Permittee shall also submit the ‘stormwater checklist for small projects’ with the building plan submittal. (Engineering)
24. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted that shows effective Best Management Practices (BMP) and erosion and sediment control measures for the site. Construction plans shall also include the “construction best management practices” plan sheet. Pullman watercourse shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. (Engineering)
25. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/SERVICES. Electric, telecommunication, and cable and utility service to the property shall be through underground service connections only. No overhead utilities are allowed. Show locations of all utility service connections: sanitary sewer, storm drain (if applicable), water (domestic and fire), cable television, telephone, electrical, and gas. (Engineering)
26. FIRE CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS. The permittee shall comply with all applicable fire and building codes and standards relating to fire and panic safety as identified by the Coastside Fire Protection District during the building permit process. (Fire)
27. HARD-WIRED SMOKE DETECTORS/ALARMS. Pursuant to the adopted California Building and Residential Code, State Fire Marshal regulations and current Coastside Fire District Ordinance, the permittee shall install smoke detectors which are hard-wired, interconnected and have battery backup in each new or reconditioned sleeping room and at a point centrally located in the corridor or area giving access to each separate sleeping area. A minimum of one detector per floor is required. For alterations: If there is an attic, basement, crawl space or removal of a wall or ceiling that provides access, then all smoke alarms shall be hardwired and interconnected. Building plan submittals shall demonstrate conformance with these requirements to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to issuance of building permits. (Fire)
28. COASTSIDE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - REGULATIONS. The project shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the Coastside County Water District. Water service shall not be in the same trench as other utilities. (Water District) 84
Resolution C-24-__
C. The following conditions shall be implemented prior to and during construction:
1. TIMING OF NESTING BIRD AND RAPTOR SURVEYS. Biological surveys related to nesting birds and raptors, shall be conducted on all trees on the site and within 500 feet from the site for nesting raptors and 300 feet from the site for songbirds, regardless of the timing of the bird breeding season. The raptor and bird surveys shall be completed within 72 hours prior to the start of construction. (Planning)
2. TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. The following tree protection measures shall be implemented during construction:
a) Prior to commencement of construction, construction fencing shall be placed around the drip line of all trees proposed for preservation. b) No grading or other construction shall occur within the drip line of any tree proposed for preservation except in conformance with a Tree Protection Plan approved by the Community Development Director.
c) No vehicle, equipment or materials shall be parked or stored within the drip line of any tree proposed for preservation.
d) New drainage basin west of the residence shall be sited and designed to avoid impacts to the Heritage trees on the site. (Planning, Building)
3. ARCHAEOLOGY-DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the California Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American(s). If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the permittee shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. (Planning)
4. ARCHAEOLOGY-DISCOVERY OF RESOURCES. If subsurface historic or archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, all work shall stop, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Director and retain a qualified archaeologist to perform an archaeological reconnaissance and identify any mitigation measures required to protect archaeological resources. Subsurface excavation shall not resume until expressly authorized by the Director. (Building)
85
Resolution C-24-__
5. SITE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. Construction fencing shall be installed along the southern edge of the 30 foot riparian buffer and eastern edge of the Further Restriction Area in order to prohibit access and protect these areas during construction. (Planning)
6. CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS. Temporary construction trailers are permitted as accessory uses in conjunction with the development of this site, subject to the following conditions:
a. The construction trailer shall be used as a temporary construction office only. b. Neither sanitation facilities nor plumbed water is permitted within the trailer. c. No overnight inhabitance of the construction trailer is permitted. d. No construction trailers are permitted on site prior to building permit issuance. e. The construction trailer shall be removed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (Planning)
7. AIR QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. The project shall implement the following standard BAAQMD dust control measures during all phases of construction on the project site:
· All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary.
Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads and parking and staging areas at construction sites. · Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown. Trucks transporting these materials shall be covered. · All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day or as often as necessary to keep them free of dust and debris associated with site construction. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
· Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating, exposed portions of the site shall be watered, landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible.
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas and previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more.
· Installation of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
· Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion of construction.
· Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
· All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. · Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Half Moon Bay regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take 86
Resolution C-24-__
corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Building)
8. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Any materials deemed hazardous by the San Mateo County Department of Health that are uncovered or discovered during the course of work under this permit shall be disposed in accordance with regulations of the San Mateo County of Health. (Building)
9. COMPLIANCE WITH CBC. All structures shall be constructed in compliance with the standards of the 2016 California Codes of Regulations Title 24, including Building Code, Residential Code, Administrative Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, Electrical Code, Energy Code, Fire Code and Green Building Code to the satisfaction of the Building Official. (Building)
10. FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT VERIFICATION. Prior to below floor framing or concrete slab steel reinforcement inspection, a stamped and signed building height verification letter shall be submitted to the City from a licensed land survey certifying that the first-floor height as constructed is equal to (or less than) the elevation specified for the first floor height in the approved plans. (Building)
11. BUILDING PAD ELEVATION. The building pad shall be at least one-foot above the centerline crown of the roadway or the top of the curb. (Engineering)
12. OVERALL PROJECT HEIGHT. Maximum overall height of the project, including any grading, foundation, pad, and building elevations shall be calculated using the elevation points indicated on the topographic survey map submitted at the time of application. The approved height of all projects developed in the City will be measured from existing grade as indicated on the submitted topographical survey. (Building)
13. COMPLETION OF UTILITIES. Any public utilities requiring relocation as a result of the construction of the building(s) or improvements under this permit shall be relocated at the owner’s expense. (Building)
14.CONSTRUCTION HOURS. Construction work shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sundays and holidays, except as expressly authorized by the City Engineer in conformance with Section 14.40.020 of the Half Moon Bay Municipal Code. (Engineering)
15. NOTICE OF DISRUPTION. The permittee shall provide written notice to affected property and business owners and a copy of such notice to the City Engineer a minimum of two business days prior to any planned disruption of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, parking, or public service facilities. (Engineering)
87
Resolution C-24-__
16. CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STORAGE. Construction material shall not be stored in the street right-of-way without issuance of a Temporary Encroachment Permit. (Engineering)
17. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. The permittee shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for any construction activity within the City right-of-way or affecting City improvements. Haul route and traffic control plan shall be included with the Encroachment Permit submittal. All improvements constructed within the City right-of-way shall conform to City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
a. Please note that an encroachment permit may need to be submitted and approved for if the electrical work is required in the City’s ROW. Based on the plans, I do not see an electrical stub out.
b. The encroachment permit application can be submitted after the issuance of the building permit. Please see the attached street encroachment permit application. c. Please note that work within the Public ROW shall not start until the City of Half Moon Bay has received the contractor’s information.
i. The Contractor for this work shall be a minimum a Class A Licensed Contractor. ii. Once the contractor’s information has been obtained, please submit the Contractor’s Certificate of Insurance and Endorsement naming the City of Half Moon Bay as additionally insured and naming the City of Half Moon Bay as the Certificate Holder.
iii. Once the contractor’s information has been obtained, please ensure that the contractor has an active business license with the City of Half Moon Bay. d. If electrical work is needed, trenching would most likely need to occur. Since trenching would occur within the Public ROW, Traffic Control Plans will be required as part of the submittal of the encroachment permit. (Engineering)
D. The following conditions shall be implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit:
1. EXTERIOR COLORS AND MATERIALS. Exterior building colors and materials shall be in substantial conformance with those shown on the approved color and materials board date-stamped 5/25/2020 to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. (Planning)
2. CCTV OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL LINE. To ensure the integrity of the existing private sanitary sewer lateral that is stubbed out, the Public Works Department requires a CCTV video for the private sewer lateral prior to the Public Works final of the building permit. (Engineering)
3. CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS. All street improvements shall be constructed in conformance with approved plans and permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 88
Resolution C-24-__
4. DISPLAY OF SINGLE-FAMILY STREET ADDRESS. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the residential dwelling shall display an internally-illuminated street address number in a prominent location on the dwelling, visible from the street (a minimum of 6 feet above the surface of the driveway), and with contrasting background and letters/numbers that are 4 inches in height with a minimum 3/4–inch stroke. Where a building is set back from the street or otherwise obscured, a street address with 3-inch reflective numbers/letters shall also be provided near the driveway entrance leading to the dwelling. (Fire, Building)
E. Validity and Expiration of Permits
1. EFFECTIVE DATE. This site is located within the Coastal Appeal Zone. This permit shall take effect after expiration of the Coastal Commission appeal period, or if the permit is appealed to the Coastal Commission during the appeal period, it shall take effect after final Coastal Commission action. (Planning)
2. ACCURACY OF APPLICATION MATERIALS. The permittee shall be responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and material submitted for this application. Any errors or discrepancies found therein may be grounds for the revocation or modification of this permit and/or any other City approvals. (Planning)
3. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and Architectural Review shall expire one year from its date of final approval if the use/development has not commenced in conformance with this permit or the applicant has not obtained an extension of the permit. (Planning)
4. PERMIT EXTENSION. The Community Development Director may, at the Director’s discretion, approve a Minor Amendment for a single one-year extension of this permit based on a written request and fee submitted to the Director prior to expiration of the permit. Submittal of a Building Permit application with development plans prior to expiration of the permit shall constitute an extension of this permit until the building permit is issued or until the Building Official determines the applicant is no longer diligently pursuing the required building permit. Any other extension shall require approval of a Major Permit Amendment prior to expiration of the permit. Any Major Permit Amendment Application to extend the permit shall be filed a minimum of ninety (90) days prior to permit expiration to ensure adequate processing time. (Planning)
5. PERMIT RUNS WITH THE LAND. The approval runs with the land and the rights and obligations thereunder, including the responsibility to comply with conditions of approval, shall be binding upon successors in interest in the real property unless or until such permits are expressly abandoned or revoked. (Planning)
89
Resolution C-24-__
6. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent allowed by law, the permittee agrees as a condition of approval of this application to indemnify, protect, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless, the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against an and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the approval of this application, any actions taken by the City related to this entitlement, any review by the California Coastal Commission conducted under the California Coastal Act Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq., or any environmental review conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 210000 et seq., for this entitlement and related actions. The indemnification shall include any Claims that may be asserted by any person or entity, including the permittee, arising out of or in connection with the approval of this application, whether or not there is concurrent, passive or active negligence on the part of the City, and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. The permittee’s duty to defend the City shall not apply in those instances when the permittee has asserted the Claims, although the permittee shall still have a duty to indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City. (City Attorney).
OWNER’S/PERMITTEE’S CERTIFICATION:
I have read and understand and hereby accept and agree to implement the foregoing conditions of approval of the Coastal Development Permit.
APPLICANT:
___________________________________ ________________________ (Signature) (Date)
90 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION P-24-09
RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL
PDP-17-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HALF MOON BAY DENYING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,710 SQUARE-FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 2800 CHAMPS ELYSEE BOULEVARD IN THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION (APN 048-133-060)
WHEREAS, an application was submitted requesting approval of Coastal Development Permit and Architectural Review to allow the construction of a new 4,710 square-foot two-story, single-family residence at 2800 Champs Elysee Boulevard in the Planned Unit Development Zoning District and the Stoloski/Gonzalez Planned Development District General Plan designation (APN: 048-133-060) (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the procedures for processing the application have been followed as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) conducted duly noticed public design review sessions on September 22, 2022, and December 15, 2022 at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, at the second meeting, the AAC was supportive of the revised design and had only minor suggestions for design changes, which were integrated into the project design as feasible; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously conducted duly noticed public hearings for the Project on August 14, 2018, April 9, 2019, May 26, 2020, and July 11, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on September 10, 2024, at which time all those desiring to be heard on the matter were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony presented for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was not able to make the required findings to approve the requested permits and therefore did not approve the requested permits and project, as set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution;
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Half Moon Bay Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing held September 10, 2024.
AYES, Gorn, Hernandez, Gossett
NOES,
ABSENT, Ruddock, Joanes
ABSTAIN,
APPROVED:
7li�� Ste e McHarris, Interim Community Development Director ATTACHMENT 4
91 92
September 10, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes
CllifOF HALF MOON BAY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
IN-PERSON/HYBRID MEETING
Chair Gossett called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM
PRESENT: Chair Gossett, fommissioners Gorn and Hernandez ABSENT: Vice Chair Joanes, Commissioner Ruddock
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.AND ROLL CALL
Chair Gossett led the Pledge of Allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
1) David Schorr - referenced Local Coastal Land Use Policies in regards to the proposed Hyatt.
PLANNING COMMISSION'!HEARING
ITEM 1.A:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
CITY FILE #: PDP-17-055
LOCATION: 2800 CHAMPS£LYSEE BOULEVARD
OWNER/APPLICANT: MAfilC MASSARA / JOHN VIDOVICH
PROJECT PLANNER: SCOTT PHILLIPS, 650-726-8299; [email protected] Scott Phillips, Senior Planner, presented to the Planning Commission.
Public Comment
1) Mark Masara - applicant representative
2) Patric Jonson
3) Beth McAnerne�
4) Mary Ruddy
5) Brad Steinwede
6) Joe Farrell
6) Jan Leonard
7) Susan Quaglietti
8) Anju Abel
9) John Rossi (remote)
10) Michael Becker (pre-recorded)
ATTACHMENT 5
93 94
ATTACHMENT 6
95 Mark A. Massara
Attorney at Law
65 Ventura Street
Half Moon Bay, California 94019
T: 805.895.0963
[email protected]
www.markmassara.com
Via Electronic Mail
Hon. Mayor Joaquin Jimenez and Council members September 13, 2024 Half Moon Bay City Hall
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay CA 94019
Attn: [email protected]
Re: PDP-17-055 – Appeal from Planning Commission
2800 Champs Elysee Blvd.
Half Moon Bay
APN 048-133-060
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I represent the applicant and property owner for the above referenced project at 2800 Champs Elysee Blvd. (“2800”). On September 10, 2024, following 7 public hearings going back to 2018, the Planning Commission denied a modest single-family house despite the project being in complete compliance and consistent with all local and state codes, policies, regulations and conditions related to an approved, existing developed subdivision.
The Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by legitimate findings of fact or based on substantial evidence in the voluminous administrative record or the long history of staff recommendations and outside peer consultant review and we respectfully urge that you reverse the Planning Commission and approve the project. 96 2
Background and Setting
The project is part of the Stoloski/Gonzalez Planned Unit Development (PUD) subdivision approved by the city in 2012 per PDP-009-10 and an LUP Amendment authorized by the California Coastal Commission in 2014. The approvals established four large lots with large building envelopes and PUD subdivision specific development conditions expressly designed and required for residential development of four houses. Two of the four lots have now been developed. The first, at 2801 Champs Elysee, was approved in 2018, constructed in 2019 and purchased in 2020. 1 The second, at 2778 Pullman Avenue, was approved by the city in October 2021, with a 4,712 sq. ft. house on an 18,372 sized lot. That house is now complete and listed for sale.2 Three of the lots, including 2800, are shown below:
1 Ironically both 2801 and the project at 2800 were initially designed in 2017, submitted for City review in 2018 and heard together with staff recommendations for approval by the Planning Commission in August 2018. While 2801 (on a much smaller 15,160 sq. ft. lot) was approved and a 2,905 sq. ft. house constructed thereafter, 2800 (with a much larger 31,699 sq. ft. lot) has yet to be approved, despite the fact it is screened by trees and existing development and will be significantly less visually intrusive.
2 https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2778-Pullman-Ave-Half-Moon-Bay-CA-94019/345205227_zpid/ 97 3
The property at 2800 is the largest of the Stoloski Subdivision parcels. At 31,699 sq. ft., the size of 2800 is exceptionally large for the Miramar area and is approximately 5 times larger than typical residential lots in Half Moon Bay, including many of the most immediate neighboring properties. The property at 2800 is also blessed with being bounded to the north by trees and the Pullman Watercourse (itself located entirely offsite of the property) and to the south by a stand of mature Monterey Cypress trees and is thus nearly invisible from nearby public vistas, the beach, roadways and surrounding residential development. 2800 is a virtual aesthetic visual island, something the Half Moon Bay Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) noted during its own two reviews of the project.
Many prior Planning Commission proceedings regarding this project have occurred, including hearings in August 2018, April 2019, May 2020, July 2023 and finally on September 10, 2024. In addition, the AAC reviewed the project in September 2022 and January 2023, with three additional applicant hosted neighborhood community meetings in between.
At all times applicant has worked diligently with City Planning staff and City peer review consultants to present to the Planning Commission project versions that met or exceeded all relevant applicable codes, policies and approved subdivision conditions. The project also proposed a myriad of refinements related to recommendations provided by the Planning Commission over the years, as well as the AAC and neighbor input. By July 2023 the house had been reduced by more than 2,000 sq. ft., to a modest size of 3,739 sq. ft. with a 571 sq. ft. garage. Given the 31,709 sq. ft. (nearly .75 acres) parcel size, the proposal covered just 3,864 sq. ft. of the lot, or just 8.2%.
3 During the July 2023 Planning Commission meeting, neighbors continued to raise concerns regarding a history of offsite flooding associated with the Pullman Ditch. Requests were then made by new Commissioners for further consideration and analysis of whether it was possible at 2800 to potentially exceed existing City requirements for 10-year onsite storm water capture and treatment. With the support of opponents of the project, the Commissioners requested that the applicant study capture and treatment of long duration storms, including whether 500-year and 1000-year storm events, which would exceed the design life of the proposed structure itself by centuries. Over the objection of the applicant for such unprecedented analysis, the Planning Commission continued the meeting in pursuit of unique and creative unprecedented updates to City stormwater regulations.
The applicant, after six years of planning, was in essence being held hostage in an effort by the Planning Commission to pursue new City stormwater runoff standards for offsite 3 To fully appreciate what an unusually small lot coverage this is, it is useful to compare the current proposal at 2800 Champs Elysee Blvd. with the recently approved project at 2778 Pullman Avenue (APN 048-133-040). The home at 2778 Pullman is part of the same fully approved Stoloski/Gonzalez PUD subdivision as 2800 Champs Elysee. At 2778 the Planning Commission approved a 4,712 sq. ft. sized house on an 18,372 sq ft. lot, with a height of 25-ft 10-inches. Lot coverage for 2778, which is also located adjacent to the Pullman Ditch, is 4,302 sq. ft., or 23.4%. Lot coverage at 2800 is just 3864 sq. ft., or only 8.2%. Height at 2800 is only 24-ft 11-inches, less than either 2778 or the home adjacent to 2800 at 2805 Alameda Avenue. In other words, the home proposed for 2800 Champs Elysee is smaller in both height and size that similar nearby houses and is located on a much larger property. Thus, after development of the residence at 2800, over 90% of the property will remain open space.
98 4
flooding concerns. Despite the circumstances the applicant then continued to work in good faith with your Planning Department staff and did in fact retain professional consultants to prepare alternative site designs, including 500-year and 1000-year storm capture features, and did in fact modify planning documents and plan sets to satisfy the Planning Commission, and include recommendations of Planning staff and City peer review experts to construct a 25-year storm event basin onsite. Planning staff conditioned the project to include additional hydrologic reporting and modeling prior to issuance of building permits for the modest house and recommended approval of the project once again.
Unfortunately, on September 10 the Planning Commission chose to willfully disregard the professional recommendations of their staff and voted to deny the project while refusing to acknowledge detailed geotechnical, soils, hydrological and physical geographical evidence in the record.
The entire 4-hour meeting is memorialized here (“PC Video”):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbpyBy5IlDc
The staff report is here (“Attachment 1”): https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2844893/Planning_Commission_ Staff_Report_2800_Champs_Elysee_9-10-24.pdf
The current plans for the project, including the updated stormwater basin plan sheet C 2.0, are here (“Attachment 2”): https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2844897/ATTACHMENT_2_280 0_Champs_Elysee_Plans.pdf
The City’s Peer Review and background reports including Geotechnical, soils, percolation test results and hydrology reports are here (“Attachment 3): https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2844898/ATTACHMENT_3_23- 005-Stormwater_Plan_Review_24-7-23.pdf
The August 26, 2024 Letter from Applicant to the Planning Commission is here (“Attachment 4”): https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2844899/ATTACHMENT_4_280 0_Champs_ElyseeHMBPC.08.26.2024.pdf
A. TO SUPPORT DENIAL OF THE PROJECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IGNORED SUBSTANTIAL AND VOLUMINOUS ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE PROJECT AND CITY PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
Throughout the Planning Commission deliberations, Commissioners Gossett and Gorn maintained time and again that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to support the staff recommendation, even though staff and the City’s peer review experts repeatedly 99 5
cited such evidence. PC Video at 1:35:50 (“I don’t know, I don’t see it”). See also, Attachments 2,3 & 4.
Staff Planning Director Steve McHarris specifically informed the Commissioners of the evidence they sought, and the reports and analysis. PC Video 1:38:00.
Peer Review consultant Matt Weld, PE, with Waterways Consulting, Inc., then also informed the Commissioners of the evidence, displayed and referenced the documents for the Commissioners and public, and underscored for everyone that designs were adequate and “not complicated”. PC Video at 1:38:42.
All the relevant and sufficient background reports and analysis were always present in the administrative record at Attachments 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Inexplicably, and hours later, Commissioner’s Gorn and Gossett were still under the mistaken belief that “no studies” existed to support staff’s recommendations. PC Video 3:24:20.
Despite this inexplicable scenario, Commissioner Hernandez attempted to explain that sufficient evidence did exist, and that substantial evidence in the record did support staff’s recommendations, and that the Planning Commission didn’t need to do all Building Permit Department technical work up front and prior to approving the project’s conceptual components (“Full stop, it is mitigated”). PC Video at 3:22:00. In fact, the City Council should ask itself why would a reasonable person do final engineering plans and reports for a project without having the conceptual site plan approvals?? Or whether any Planning Commission in California works in such a manner?? In other words, Commissioner’s Gorn and Gossett sought to put the cart before the horse with their denial of the project in search of unending technical analysis rather than simply relying on adequate project conditioning and staff expert recommendations.
In one memorable exchange, Commissioner Gorn said, “that is not really planning” to which Commissioner Hernandez said, “It is planning” while thereafter explaining the function of a Planning Commission, traditional reliance on staff, peer review, expert consulting, condition compliance and building permit issuance. PC Video at 3:24:30.
After extolling the benefits of the project as shown in the record, Commissioner Hernandez said, “make a decision yes or no, is my recommendation. If you want to say no I’m fine with it and let them appeal to the City Council.” PC Video at 3:26:00.
Incredibly, Commissioner Gorn then said, “It’s all true” and followed that up with, “Also, just to be clear, if we say no to this project it gets appealed to the City Council, so it’s not the end of the world” as if to inform the applicant, the public and the City Council that our time and resources now spent having to repair Planning Commission decisions are of little or no value. PC Video at 3:28.14
100
6 To confirm the obvious, Commissioner Hernandez then concluded, “This is the thing, most likely, City Council is just going to approve this, they are going to override.” PC Video at 3:28:45
For the failure to acknowledge the administrative record and the underlying reports and analysis associated with the staff recommendation for approval, the Planning Commission denial of the project should be reversed by the City Council.
B. TO SUPPORT DENIAL OF THE PROJECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PROJECT SITE IS A COASTAL BLUFF IN VIOLATION OF LUP ESHA MAPS, THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE HMB ZONING CODE, EXISTING INTERVENING SEAWARD PROPERTIES AND OTHER PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT.
Even though the applicant’s property is not located on the beach, members of the Planning Commission insisted, even after staff repeatedly corrected them, that applicant’s property was located on a “coastal bluff.”
The purported reason for deciding that applicant’s property was on the beach was that the Planning Commission could then utilize LCP Policy 7-12 to further delay approval of the project, and continue to scrutinize the property for fear of future sea rise and tsunami dangers.
However, it was explained by both the applicant and planning staff that the applicant’s property is not subject to LCP Policy 7-12 as that policy is identified by the LCP for “Blufftop and Beachfront Development.” https://www.half-moonbay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3762/Chapter-7-Environmental-Hazards @ p. 7-19.
Policy 7-12, entitled “Site Specific Shoreline Hazards Evaluation” requires further evaluations for coastal bluff and beachfront property. The policy is derived from Coastal Act policies 30235 and 30253 which address seawalls and siting new development to avoid future need for seawalls. The Coastal Commission has never applied these policies to inland property, and neither should Half Moon Bay.
However, as shown in the photo below, 2800 is obviously not on the ocean and the project is not “Coastal Bluff” or “Beachfront Development” as defined by the LCP. 101
7 In an overly strained effort to apply the Policy 7-12 to 2800, Commissioners spent considerable time trying to “measure” the distance between the beach and the 2800.
Incredibly, at least one Commissioner maintained a failed culvert on State Beach property had created a “new” “coastal bluff” between the beach and 2800 that could, in effect, redefine the property in violation of Half Moon Bay’s Zoning Code and sections defining Coastal Resources, and morph the property from “sand dunes” to “bluffs” in clear violation of LUP ESHA Maps (Sheet 1 of 3) Figure 6-2. https://www.half-moonbay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3761/Chapter-6-Natural-Resources at p. 6-23. See also HMB Zoning Code Section 18.38.020.
Yet one needs only to look at the picture to appreciate that the building site at 2800 is over 900-ft from the coast and obvious sand dunes as mapped in the LUP, and is located behind a State Beach, a public parking lot, 2 public roads, a paved coastal bike path and several houses. Even the westernmost edge of the 2800 property, as staff informed the Commission, is nearly 500-ft landward of the beach.
102
8 Another view of the property, showing the 2800 building site over 900-ft landward of the sand dunes, is here:
As should have been readily appreciable, 2800 is not on the beach, and not subject to LCP Policy 7-12. Yet despite being repeatedly educated regarding the property numerous times during the meeting, Commissioners insisted in their erroneous belief that 2800 is located on a coastal bluff, and that the public would benefit from additional year(s) of delay related to yet more study.
C. TO SUPPORT DENIAL OF THE PROJECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO 100 YEAR FLOOD POLICIES DESPITE THE FACT THE RECORD EXPLICITLY DEMONSTRATES THAT IT IS NOT MAPPED AS SUCH IN THE LCP.
Similarly, the Planning Commission sought to invite additional further delay of 2800 by requesting further analysis related to LCP Policies 7-51 through 7-57 for Flood Hazards applicable to properties associated with 100-yr. flood potential.
Unfortunately, despite staff and the applicant repeatedly explaining that 2800 is not mapped for 100-yr flood exposure in LCP Figure 7-6, and not otherwise exposed or subject to flooding, and that the project would not flood as some lower lyng neighboring properties do, the Planning Commission refused to consider the record in denying the project. See https://www.half-moon-bay.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/3762/Chapter-7- Environmental-Hazards at p. 7-41.
103
9 Instead, the Planning Commission welcomed a suggestion from City legal counsel that they attempt to base denial of the project upon the fact that the property at 2800 had not been “evaluated” pursuant to LCP Policy 7-51 and 7-57. PC Video 3:31.
Obviously, since 2800 is not mapped for Flood Hazards by the LCP and not in fact a flood prone property, planning staff had correctly not recommended or required such additional analysis.
Thus, if the Planning Commission had just acknowledged that the property at 2800 is not mapped for flooding in LCP Figure 7-6, or evaluated survey documents demonstrating the 2800 building site is a full 7-ft elevation higher than nearby flood prone properties, or scrutinized the administrative record or testimony of planning staff or the applicant, the Commission would have realized that imposition of further delay and study of the property for additional year(s) was inappropriate. PC Video 3:32.
D. SINCE THIS APPEAL IS THE 8TH PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT, HALF MOON BAY IS IN VIOLATION OF THE 5-HEARING RULE UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65905.5 AND THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD REVERSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION POST HASTE AND APPROVE THE PROJECT WITHOUT FURTHER STUDY OR DELAY.
California Government Code Section 65905.5 was enacted specifically to facilitate housing development, and requires that a City “shall not conduct more than five hearings … in connection with the approval of that housing development project.” https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-65905-5/ The project at 2800 was originally submitted for review in 2017. The first Planning Commission hearing occurred in August 2018. Subsequent hearings of the Planning Commission occurred in April 2019, May 2020, July 2023 and September 2024. Planning staff found the project compliant with all codes, policies and standards and recommended the project be approved at each hearing. Thinking that it would assist, the applicant even participated in two separate AAC public hearings in September 2022 and January 2023, meaning that for purposes of Government Code Section 65905.5 the city has already now held at least 7 public hearings for the project, and is in violation of the law. This City Council appeal will be public hearing number 8.
Despite all this the applicant has continued to work with staff in good faith, and worked closely with and followed the recommendations of Planning Department staff and City peer review expert Waterways Consulting, Inc., to make modifications to the project.
Despite the best efforts of staff and the applicant, the Planning Commission has continued to refuse approve the project, and sought to further delay the project, even after numerous hearings in violation of state law. On September 10 the Planning Commission then denied the project with findings directly controverted by the record and not based on the recommendations of staff, peer review consultants or substantial evidence in the record. 104
10 Conclusion
As the record more than adequately demonstrates, City review for this single-family home has been considerable and has now spanned over seven years.4 While the protracted voluminous proceedings have resulted in significant voluntary and unprecedented public benefits, the process has also required the property owner to engage in a program that increasingly resembles a Faustian Bargain, in which the applicant does ever more to satisfy the Planning Commission and project opponents only to have those concessions be perpetually insufficient. After three significant redesigns of the home, dramatic reductions in size, important open space and environmental restoration, structural clustering and now unprecedented flood control measures, and for the applicant being in continuing compliance with all City policies, regulations, and subdivision conditions, it is time for the applicant’s reasonable expectation of a house on a legal parcel to be realized, and for the City Council to reverse and override the Planning Commission and approve the project.
Thank you for your patience and consideration.
Very truly yours,
Mark A. Massara, Esq.
4 Planning, study and scrutiny of the residential use of the property started in fact more than a century ago with the Surf Beach Tract subdivision. The more recent Stoloski/Gonzalez PUD, and the subsequent subdivision and reconfiguration of that 2.1-acre property into four residential parcels was approved by Planning Commission in 2010. The City Council approved the subdivision in 2012 and the Coastal Commission in 2014. Consideration of the current application was initiated in 2017. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/231402/PC_Stoloski_Gonzalez_PD_LUP_Amendment_Initiation_ 8-28-18.pdf
105
NOV O 3 2011
Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: October 31, 2011 to November 30, 2011 To: County of San Mateo Recorders Office
Attn: Special Services
555 County Center, 1st Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
From: City of Half Moon Bay
Planning Department
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Subject: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was previously circulated for public review for the original project (SCH# 2011052007). Based on comments received on the Draft IS/MND, a new, avoidable significant effect has been identified and mitigation measures have been added in order to reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. This revision triggers a recirculation of the IS/MND pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, minor changes to the Tentative Parcel Map were made for the proposed project related to bridge design and the proposed storm drain outfall. Therefore, this document serves as Notice of Intent to Adopt a Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately 2.1 acres of ruderal fields and coastal scrub into four lots, and to construct a new on-site storm drain system to replace an existing open channel (Pullman Ditch), located on adjoining properties along the northern boundary of the Project Area. It has been determined that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. This Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Project Title:
PDP-009-10
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project
Contact Person: Steve Flint, Director
Address: 501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Applicant:
Mark Stoloski
727 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Telephone: (650) 726-8250
E-mail: [email protected]
Project Location: The Stoloski Property (Project Area) is located at 37° 29' 19.40" N latitude, 122' 27' 07.84" W, longitude, approximately .:t:: 20 feet west of Highway 1 and 600 feet landward of the Pacific Ocean, and _:t:9,300 feet northwest (2.0 miles, up coast) from the intersection of Highways 1 and 92.
Project Description: The proposed project consists of an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately 2.1 acres of ruderal fields and coastal scrub into four lots, and to construct a new on-site storm drain system to replace an existing open channel (Pullman Ditch), located on adjoining properties along the northern boundary of the Project Area. No development other than the installation of streets, drainage and other utilities is proposed at this time. The development of single family residences on the four new lots would be evaluated with the submittal of a CDP application in the future.
ATTACHMENT 7
106
107
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project
Recirculated Initial Study
Lead Agency:
City of Half Moon Bay
Planning Department
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, California 94019
Contact:
Steve Flint, Planning Director
(650) 726-8252
[email protected]
October 2011
108
109
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project
Recirculated Initial Study
Lead Agency:
City of Half Moon Bay
Planning Department
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, California 94019
Contact:
Steve Flint, Planning Director
(650) 726-8252
[email protected]
October 2011
110
111
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -i- October 2011 Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................................ 3 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION .............................................................................................. 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ........................................................................ 4 I. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................. 9 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ............................................................ 11 III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 13 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 16 V. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................... 25 VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................... 27 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................... 30 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................... 33 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ....................................................................... 38 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................... 43 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 46 XII. NOISE .......................................................................................................................... 46 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................... 51 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 52 XV. RECREATION .............................................................................................................. 53 XVI. TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................... 54 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 56 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................ 58 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN ............................................................. 59 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 73 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Location Map ............................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 – Tentative Parcel Map ................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables
Table 1 – Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes ..... 27 Table 2 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ................................................................... 60 Appendices
Appendix A – Preliminary Hydrology Report
Appendix B – Geotechnical Report
Appendix C – Hazardous Material Site Assessments
Appendix C1 – Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO, Inc., 2010 Appendix C2 – Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO, Inc., 2011 Appendix D – Department of the Army Jurisdictional Determination 112
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -1- October 2011 Environmental Checklist Form
Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Title
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project
Project Location
North Cabrillo Highway (APN 048-133-010) in the City of Half Moon Bay (Figure 1) Project Sponsor's Name and Address
Mark Stoloski
727 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Lead Agency
City of Half Moon Bay
Planning Department
501 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Attn: Steve Flint, Director
(650) 726 – 8252
[email protected]
General Plan Designation
The City’s Local Coastal Plan designates the site as Planned Development.
Zoning
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Description of Project
The proposed project consists of an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately
2.1 acres of ruderal fields and coastal scrub into four lots (Figure 2). Additionally the proposed project would extend the existing water mains in Champs Elysee Boulevard and Pullman Avenue to the project site and construct a new on-site sanitary sewer. No development other than the installation of streets and utilities is proposed at this time. The development of single family residences on the four new lots would be evaluated with the submittal of a CDP application in the future.
The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan designates the site (“project area”) as Planned Development (PD). The project area is located in a Planned Unit Development zoning district, which is consistent with the LCP. The LCP designation allows for a maximum of two dwelling units per acre. The existing parcel would be subdivided into four parcels. The western portion of Parcel D and the northerly 15 feet of Parcels A, B, C and D are designated for open space. The proposed project would not include development other than infrastructure including the installation of streets, sidewalks, and utilities.
113
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -2- October 2011 Access to the proposed project would be from extensions of Pullman Avenue and Champs Elysee Boulevard. Pullman Avenue would be extended 60 feet with a cul-de-sac and the extension of Champs Elysee Boulevard would be constructed in the existing right-of-way from Washington Boulevard to the project area with a cul-de-sac. A free-span bridge constructed outside of the top of bank would be used to cross Pullman Ditch at each of the two cul-de-sac locations. Sidewalks and gutters would be added to bring these streets to City standards.
Sewers would be constructed from Naples Avenue easterly to Champs Elysee Boulevard and Pullman Avenue. Additionally, an auger bore would be used to underground the proposed water main extensions, thus avoiding impacts to the bed, bank, or channel of Pullman Ditch.
The proposed project also includes the construction of a storm drain parallel to and south of Pullman Ditch as well as a storm drain outlet that would flow into the western end of the ditch.
The new storm drain would be connected to the two existing 24-inch CalTrans culverts which currently discharge runoff into Pullman Ditch. The new storm drain has been sized to accommodate post project flows as well as runoff from the drainage basin east of Cabrillo Highway. Total earthwork for street and infrastructure improvements would include less than 200 cubic yards of soil and would be balanced on-site (Ashley, 2010). No lot grading is proposed as part of this application.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Stoloski Property (project area) is located at 37° 29' 19.40” N latitude, 122° 27' 07.84” W, longitude, approximately + 20 feet west of Highway 1 and 600 feet landward of the Pacific Ocean, and +9,300 feet northwest (2.0 miles, up coast) from the intersection of Highways 1 and 92 (Figure 2). The nearest streams mapped by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) (2004) are: Frenchman’s Creek, approximately 2,500 feet to the south; Naples Ditch (aka “Naples Creek”), 875 feet to the north; and Arroyo de en Medio, 2,600 feet to the north of the project area.
The project area is bordered by residential development to the north, Highway 1 and a commercial nursery to the east, agricultural fields to the south, and Half Moon Bay State Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The western boundary of the project area is 225 feet east of Balboa Boulevard (road and bike trail portions of Half Moon Bay State Beach).
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May Be Required
- Regional Water Quality Control Board (CWA Section 401 permit) - Army Corps of Engineers (CWA Section 404 permit)
- California Department of Transportation: The box culvert adjacent to the northwest corner of the project area is located in Caltrans right-of-way.
Coastal Commission: No development other than the installation of streets and other utilities is proposed at this time. The development of single family residences on the four new lots would be evaluated with the submittal of a CDP application in the future.
114
115
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -4- October 2011
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Environmental Checklist and discussion that follows is based on sample questions provided in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G) which focus on various individual concerns within 17 different broad environmental categories, such as air quality, climate change, cultural resources, land use, public services, noise and traffic (and arranged in alphabetical order). The Guidelines also provide specific direction and guidance for preparing responses to the Environmental Checklist. The sample questions are meant to be used to meet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines have been met. Substantial evidence of potential environmental impacts that are not listed in the checklist must also be considered. The sample questions are intended to encourage thoughtful assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent thresholds of significance.
Each question in the Checklist essentially requires a “yes” or “no” reply as to whether or not the project will have a potentially significant environmental impact of a certain type, and, following a Checklist table with all of the questions in each major environmental heading, citations, information and/or discussion that supports that determination. The Checklist table provides, in addition to a clear “yes” reply and a clear “no” reply, two possible “in-between” replies, including one that is equivalent to “yes, but with changes to the project that the proponent and the Lead Agency have agreed to, no”, and another “no” reply that requires a greater degree of discussion, supported by citations and analysis of existing conditions, threshold(s) of significance used and project effects than required for a simple “no” reply. Each possible answer to the questions in the Checklist, and the different type of discussion required, is discussed below:
a) Potentially Significant Impact. Checked if a discussion of the existing setting (including relevant regulations or policies pertaining to the subject) and project characteristics with regard to the environmental topic demonstrates, based on substantial evidence, supporting information, previously prepared and adopted environmental documents, and specific criteria or thresholds used to assess significance, that the project will have a potentially significant impact of the type described in the question. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Checked if the discussion of existing conditions and specific project characteristics, also adequately supported with citations of relevant research or documents, determine that the project clearly will or is likely to have particular physical impacts that will exceed the given threshold or criteria by which significance is determined, but that with the incorporation of clearly defined mitigation measures into the project, that the project applicant or proponent has agreed to, such impacts will be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Checked if a more detailed discussion of existing conditions and specific project features, also citing relevant information, reports or studies, demonstrates that, while some effects may be discernible with regard to the individual environmental topic of the question, the effect would not exceed a threshold of significance which has been established by the Lead or a Responsible Agency. The discussion may note that due to the evidence that a given impact would not occur or would be less than significant, no mitigation measures are required.
d) No Impact. Checked if brief statements (one or two sentences) or cited reference materials (maps, reports or studies) clearly show that the type of impact could not be reasonably expected to occur due to the specific characteristics of the project or its location (e.g. the project falls outside the nearest fault rupture zone, or is several hundred feet from a 100- 116
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -5- October 2011 year flood zone, and relevant citations are provided). The referenced sources or information may also show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A response to the question may also be "No Impact" with a brief explanation that the basis of adequately supported project-specific factors or general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a basic screening of the specific project).
The discussions of the replies to the Checklist questions must take account of the whole action involved in the project, including off-site as well as on-site effects, both cumulative and projectlevel impacts, indirect and direct effects, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Except when a “No Impact” reply is indicated, the discussion of each issue must identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance, with sufficient description to briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D) of the Guidelines). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
117
Date: December 2010
Map By: Michael Rochelle
Figure 1. Location Map
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision
Half Moon Bay, California
.
0 1,000 2,000 500
Feet
_^ Project
Area
Contra Costa
County 1¬«
101
£¤
80 §¨¦
80 §¨¦
580
§¨¦
San Francisco
Bay
101
£¤
Sonoma
County
San Francisco
County
San Mateo
County
Alameda
County
1¬«
280
§¨¦
880
§¨¦
680
§¨¦ Marin
County
Solano
County
0 10 20 5
Miles
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\20000\20206\gis\arcmap\Location.mxd Project Area (2.6 acres)
Study Area (15.6 acres)
1¬«
1¬«
Half Moon Bay Coastal Trail
Wash ni g ot n B vl d
Roosevelt B vl d
Alameda Ave
Naple Ave
Young Ave
Pacific Ocean
118
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -7- October 2011 This page intentionally left blank.
119
Figure
P:\Projects\20000\20206\Figures\Figure 2_rev North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision City of Half Moon Bay, California Date: February 2011 Source: Michael D. Ashley, Civil Engineer 2 - Tentative Parcel Map Note: Original drawing size was 42” x 30” with a scale of 1” = 40’. The drawing above is shown at 1” = 130’. 120
121
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -9- October 2011 I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant with Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
2 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 2
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2
Setting:
The proposed project is bordered by residential development to the north, Highway 1 and a commercial nursery to the east, agricultural fields to the south, and Half Moon Bay State Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The western boundary of the project area is 225 feet east of Balboa Boulevard (road and bike trail portions of Half Moon Bay State Beach). The City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) and Zoning Code includes policies and standards addressing visual resources in the City. Chapter 7, Visual Resources, of the LCP/LUP addresses the protection of views of scenic areas and visual resources visible from public roads and trails. The LCP/LUP also includes a Visual Resource Overlay Map that identifies existing visual resources located throughout the City.
Impacts:
I. (a). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views of a scenic vista. According to the Visual Resources Overlay Map, there are no designated shoreline access routes from the project area, as defined in the LCP/LUP. However, the Visual Resources Overlay Map indicates that the proposed project area does allow for views from Highway 1 of the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project would not result in the construction of new buildings on the site and therefore would not introduce incompatible elements which could significantly impact scenic vistas. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
I. (b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be damaged or removed by a project. The project area is not located within an officially designated state scenic highway.1 The proposed project would
remove approximately 0.08-acre of Monterey pine trees from the extensions of Pullman Avenue
1 Caltrans Scenic Highway Program website. Accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, November 29, 2010.
122
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -10- October 2011 and Champs Elysee Boulevard. Monterey pine is one of the most widely planted conifers in the world, but in its native habitat it is restricted to five locations: the Monterey Peninsula, Cambria, Año Nuevo, and two locations on Mexican islands off the Pacific coast of Baja California. It is listed as a rare CNPS 1B taxon, but is also considered an invasive species where planted outside of its native range (WRA, 2011). Half Moon Bay is not within the native range of Monterey pine, and stands in the project and Study areas appear to have originated as linear plantings. Policy 7-9 of the City’s LCP/LUP states that new development shall be sited and designed to avoid or minimize destruction or significant alteration of significant existing plant communities identified in the General Plan (which include riparian vegetation along stream banks, and notable tree stands). Although a portion of Monterey pine trees are visible from Highway 1, the loss of 0.08-acre of these trees would not represent substantial damage to scenic resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
I. (c). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce incompatible visual elements on the project area or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the project area or the area surrounding the site. Currently the project area includes agricultural row crops, a pumpkin patch, and developed areas (i.e., a construction yard and structures related to the pumpkin patch). The project does not propose construction of any new buildings or changes to the project area other than street and infrastructure installation. The site is bounded to the north by residential development and to the east by Highway 1 and a commercial nursery. The proposed project would not introduce an incompatible visual element to the site or surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact the visual character or quality of the site or surroundings and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
I. (d). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce new sources of light or glare on or from the project area which would be incompatible with the area surrounding the project area, or which pose a safety hazard to motorists utilizing adjacent streets or freeways. Currently there are no existing on-site lighting sources. Existing off-site sources of lighting include interior and exterior lighting associated with the nearby land uses. The proposed project does not include construction of structures that would introduce new sources of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and its surroundings.
Therefore, no impacts would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
123
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -11- October 2011 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant with Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 2
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
2 d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2
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 forest land to non-forest use? 2 Setting:
According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland Map (2008), the project area is designated as Other Land. The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan designates the site as Planned Development (PD). The project area is located in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. The site has been used for pumpkin farming.
The Williamson Act of 1965 allows local governments to enter into contract agreements with local landowners with the purpose of trying to limit specific parcels of land to agricultural or other related open space uses. The project area does not contain any state designated agricultural lands or open space. The project area is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract.
Impacts:
II. (a). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of State-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another nonagricultural use. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Protection, lists Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the general category of “Important Farmland” in California. The project area had previously been farmed, 124
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -12- October 2011 but currently pumpkins are imported to the site for sale and the site does not support agricultural crops. According to the State Division of Land Resource Protection map, “Important Farmland in California, 2008,” the project area is designated as Other Land and is not included in the Important Farmland category. The proposed project is located in a semi-developed area and is zoned for development (PUD). Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with the zoning density and the LCP. Thus, impacts related to the conversion of Farmland would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
II. (b). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. The proposed project would include the construction of streets and infrastructure. The project area is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), and is located in a semi-developed area. The project area is not zoned for agricultural uses nor are there any existing agricultural uses on-site, with the exception of imported pumpkins for a pumpkin patch at the northeast portion of the site. The project area does not contain any state designated agricultural lands or open space and is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, no impact would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
II. (c). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The project area is zoned PUD and therefore implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
II. (d). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project area is located in a semideveloped area and does not include forest land or timberland. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
II. (e). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project results in the conversion of farmland to another non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project area is not zoned for agricultural or forest land uses. Additionally, as discussed above, the project area is not classified as any type of farmland by the State of California’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and the site does not include forest land or timberland. No farmland or forest land would be converted to a non-agricultural or non-forest use as a result of the proposed project. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
125
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -13- October 2011 III. 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:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant with Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 2
c) 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)?
2 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 2 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 2 Setting:
The project area is located in San Mateo County, which is situated in the San Francisco Bay area. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional governmental agency that regulates sources of air pollution in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay area. In June 2010, the BAAQMD created new CEQA Guidelines with the purpose to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Guidelines provide BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. These revised Guidelines supersede the BAAQMD’s previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (BAAQMD 1999).
Impacts:
III. (a). Less than Significant Impact. A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies or obtaining the goals of that plan.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) assess and classify the air quality of each air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific developed area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with federal and state standards. If a pollutant concentration in an area is lower than the standard, the area is classified as being in “attainment.” If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is classified as a “nonattainment” area. The San Francisco Bay area is considered “nonattainment” for ozone federal standards, and is considered “nonattainment” for State standards for ozone (O3), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
126
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -14- October 2011 To bring the Basin into attainment, the BAAQMD has developed the 2005 Ozone Attainment Plan. This plan is based on population projections through 2020 compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The plan includes emission control strategies placed on industrial facilities and other emissions sources through application of BAAQMD rules and regulations.
The proposed project’s activities would not affect population or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) that would affect regional air quality planning efforts, and therefore, would have a less than significant impact on implementation of the 2005 Ozone Attainment Plan. No further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
III. (b). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A project may have a significant impact if project-related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project includes grading and development of streets and infrastructure, but not the construction or operation of homes. Regarding potential operational air quality impacts, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identify projects likely to result in a significant air quality impact, for which an air quality impact analysis must be prepared. These projects are those that generate more than 2,000 vehicle trips per day during the operational phase of the project. The proposed project is not expected to result in an increase of daily vehicle trips.
Although the project-generated traffic would not result in a significant long-term impact on local or regional air quality, short-term construction impacts could represent a significant adverse impact without mitigation. Sources of air emissions and dust include activities such as excavation, grading, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicles and equipment exhaust. Sensitive receptors for these emissions and dust in the project area include primarily residential uses. However, the proposed project meets all of the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for construction-related air quality impacts. Therefore, with implementation of the following BAAQMD mitigation measures, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ–1 The following practices shall be followed during all future phases of site preparation and construction activities at the site:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
• 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 127
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -15- October 2011 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.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
III. (c). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or state non-attainment pollutants.
Although the project-generated traffic would not result in a significant long-term impact on local or regional air quality, short-term construction impacts could represent a significant adverse impact without mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, see IIl(b) above, would reduce potential impacts to air quality standards to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
III. (d). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors.
However, as noted in the response to Checklist Item III (b and c), the operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. Additionally, the determination of whether a project would have a significant cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local General Plan and the consistency of the General Plan with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP). The proposed project, with mitigation measures, would be consistent with the City's LCP/LUP. The LCP/LUP is consistent with the CAP; therefore, the project would pose no significant cumulative air quality impacts. Thus, impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
III. (e). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project has the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. According to the BAAQMD, typical uses that may result in significant odor impacts include wastewater treatment plant, sanitary landfill, transfer station, composting facility, petroleum refinery, asphalt batch plant, chemical manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, painting/coating operations, rendering plant, and coffee roasters. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the BAAQMD as being associated with odors. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
128
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -16- October 2011 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact 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?
2 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
2 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?
2 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?
2 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
2 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?
2 g) Result in conversion of oak woodlands that will have a significant effect on the environment? 2
Setting:
On November 11, 2010 WRA, Inc. (WRA) conducted a biological reconnaissance of the project area and the surrounding 200-foot-wide study area required by section 18.38.035 (contained in the Zoning Code of the LCP Implementation Plan) to identify, describe, and map any potential existing wild strawberry habitat, sensitive habitats including riparian and wetland areas or other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), and “rare, threatened, or endangered” species which may occur in the project area and the surrounding 200-foot-wide study area (WRA, 2011).
Present Pullman Ditch2
(top of bank) is located on the northern boundary outside of the project area; culverts extend underneath existing residential structures for a length of +80 feet. Waters
2 Pullman Ditch was dug by hand in or about 1912 as an agricultural drain, +2 feet wide and +1.5 feet deep, south of its present location. Pullman Ditch consists of an open ditch with culverts, located in the side yards of or partly underneath, homes approved and constructed after 1976 on Champs Elysee, Alameda, Pullman, and 129
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -17- October 2011 enter Pullman Ditch through a box culvert located adjacent to the northwest corner of the project area, located in Caltrans right-of-way. The box culvert drains various properties including the nursery located on the east side of Highway 1.
Pullman Ditch, where it traverses the project area, consists of a man-made, mechanically excavated one to two feet deep and one to two feet wide, geometrical channel, with earthen bed and banks. The western most extent of Pullman Ditch within the project area is daylighted and bounded by a concrete retaining wall to the north and straw bale swales to the south for a length of +90 feet. The eastern extent of the ditch is a narrow (~5 ft wide) deeply incised channel dominated by non-native vegetation. Pullman Ditch trends southwesterly along the northern project area boundary and drains into the Pacific Ocean through a box culvert at the westernmost extent of the project area. Pullman Ditch includes “other waters” of the United States and is under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (refer to Appendix D).
Impacts:
IV. (a). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a project were to remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The project and study areas were surveyed to describe biological communities present and whether any sensitive habitats as defined in the LCP were present. A preliminary wetland assessment was conducted and findings were based primarily on the presence of wetland plant indicators or hydric soils.
No coastal biological resources or sensitive habitats were found in the project area or study area. Biological communities in the project area include Monterey pine stands, arroyo willow stands, ruderal herbaceous grassland, and developed areas. Expanding outward from the Stoloski lot the study area includes Monterey pine stands, ruderal herbaceous grassland, northern coastal scrub, agricultural and developed areas.
According to Chapter 18.38.020A of the City of Half Moon Bay’s Zoning Code, sensitive habitat areas are defined as areas in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable, and/or as designated on the Habitat Areas and Water Resources Overlay Map. Areas considered by the City to be sensitive include sand dunes, marine habitat, sea cliffs, riparian areas, and wetlands, and habitats containing or supporting unique species or any rare and endangered species defined by the State Fish and Game Commission. Monterey pine provides suitable habitat for many migratory avian species, and may provide roosting habitat for monarch butterfly. Although this community is non-sensitive in itself, the habitat was evaluated for the potential to support breeding raptors common to the San Mateo County coastal zone.
Additionally, construction impacts would be potentially significant to special status wildlife species in the project area and study area. Impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project are summarized as follows:
Naples Avenues. In addition, Pullman Ditch discharges to the gully and beach at the State Park unit through a culvert underneath the paved park road and trail.
130
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -18- October 2011 Special-status Plants
No special status plant species were considered to have a high potential to occur in the project or study areas due to limited native habitat and levels of disturbance on-site. Although, specialstatus plants are unlikely to occur within the project area, they may be found within the study area. Nineteen (19) species, including 17 plants and two mosses, were determined to have a moderate potential to occur in the study area (WRA, 2011). However, these species are unlikely to occur in the project area due to higher levels of disturbance and a lack of coastal scrub habitat. The November 2010 site visits did not identify any special-status plant species on-site. However, these species may be present and additional surveys are required to determine absence. Potential disturbance to these species is considered potentially significant.
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a lessthan-significant level.
Nesting Birds
Nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other regulations may be impacted by construction during the bird breeding season from February through August. Ideally, the clearing of vegetation, removal of buildings and the initiation of construction can be done in the non-breeding season from September through January. If construction occurs during the breeding season (1 February through 31 August) then impacts would be potentially significant.
Implementation of pre-construction nesting bird surveys required in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Bats
Habitats that support large, mature trees, snags and abandoned buildings have the potential to support roosting habitat for common and special status bats. The project area and surrounding area support potential bat habitat. Bat roosts are protected by CDFG and removal of occupied roosts would be considered a significant impact. Trees and snags may be removed outside of the maternity roosting season (September through March) without performing preconstruction bat surveys. If construction occurs during the maternity roosting season, then impacts to bats would be potentially significant. Pre-construction bat surveys required in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat
The shrub areas in the study area have the potential to support the San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat. Destruction of Woodrat stick homes would represent a potentially significant impact.
Although no stick houses were found during the November 2010 site visit, if stick houses are observed during construction they should be avoided if possible. If avoidance is not possible, then implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Monarch Butterfly
Monarch butterflies have known winter roosts just to the south of the study area. No impacts would be expected if tree removal is scheduled between March and September. If tree removal were to occur outside of this period then impacts would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
131
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -19- October 2011 Mitigation Measures:
BIO–1 Seasonally-appropriate protocol-level plant surveys in the study area are recommended to account for the 19 species. These surveys should cover the blooming periods of all species listed in Section 4.2.1 of the Biological Resource Assessment (WRA, 2011). If any special status plant species are identified in the study area or project area, development activities shall avoid these areas and appropriate buffer areas established around such species. A qualified biologist shall determine the size and location of any buffer. Fencing or other barriers shall be installed to prevent disturbance of the special status species ESHA and buffer area until project construction is complete. If a suitable protective ESHA buffer cannot be preserved, mitigation shall include restoration and improvement of habitat within the remaining buffer area or other suitable areas on the project site. Restoration shall include removal of invasive species that threaten the continuance of the special status species and its habitat.
BIO–2a Impacts to Raptors and Tree-Nesting Raptor Nests: The following measure was designed to ensure that tree-nesting raptors (e.g., hawks, falcons, owls, etc.) are not disturbed during the breeding season.
A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for tree-nesting raptors in all trees occurring within 250-feet of project building envelopes within 30 days of the onset of ground disturbance, if such disturbance will occur during the breeding season (1 February through 31 August). If nesting raptors are detected on the site during the survey, a construction buffer of 250 feet shall be established around each active nest for the duration of the breeding season or until it has been confirmed that all young have fledged and are independent. A biological monitor would monitor the site to ensure nesting raptors are not adversely affected by construction activities and to determine when young are independent. Pre-construction surveys during the non-breeding season are not necessary for tree-nesting raptors, as they are expected to abandon their roosts if disturbed by construction.
BIO–2b Impacts to Other Nesting Birds: Harm or disruption to nesting birds and/or their eggs or young as a result of project construction would be considered a violation of state and federal law, and therefore, would be considered a potentially significant impact. The following measures were designed to ensure that special status and common nesting birds are not disturbed during the breeding season.
To avoid impacting nesting birds (including CDFG Species of Special Concern), one of the following shall be implemented:
a) Conduct grading and construction activities, including the removal of Monterey pine trees from September 1st through January 31st, when birds are not likely to be nesting on the site;
- OR -
b) Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds if construction is to take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). A 132
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -20- October 2011 qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nest survey no more than 5 days prior to initiation of grading to provide confirmation of the presence or absence of active nests on or immediately adjacent to the study area. If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of the nest shall be deferred until the young birds have fledged. A minimum exclusion buffer of 50 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that (1) no active nests are present, or (2) that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur.
BIO–3 Impacts to Bats: If construction occurs during the roosting season then preconstruction surveys for bats shall take place. Additionally, unused buildings may provide winter roost habitat and shall be surveyed for roosts if removed between November and March. If special status bat species are detected during surveys, appropriate, species and roost specific mitigation measures shall be developed. Such measures may include postponing removal of trees, snags or structures until the end of the maternity roosting season or construction of species appropriate roosting habitat within, or adjacent to the study area.
Consultation with CDFG may be warranted to determine appropriate mitigation measures if roosts are disturbed or destroyed.
BIO–4 Impacts to San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat: Conduct pre-construction surveys. If stick houses are found and if avoidance is not feasible, the houses shall be dismantled by hand under the supervision of a biologist. If young are encountered during the dismantling process, the material shall be placed back on the house, a buffer of 25 feet using orange construction fencing shall be erected, and the house shall remain unmolested for two to three weeks in order to give the young enough time to mature and leave the house. After two to three weeks, the nest dismantling process may begin again. Nest material shall be moved to suitable adjacent areas that will not be impacted.
BIO–5 Impacts to monarch butterfly: If construction activities or vegetation removal is scheduled during the winter from October through February, then a monarch winter roost survey shall be conducted. Detection of a roost may require consultation with CDFG.
IV. (b). Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS were to be adversely modified without adequate mitigation.
Although arroyo willow is a riparian species, conditions within the project area do not meet the requirements of a riparian habitat per the LCP guidelines. Chapter 3 of the LCP Land Use Plan defines riparian vegetation as “at least 50 percent of the cover in an area made up of riparian 133
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -21- October 2011 species” (Riparian Habitats, page 42, of the LCP). The total 0.09 acre (0.06 acre within the project area) of arroyo willow present in the study area comprises less than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover along Pullman Ditch; Pullman Ditch itself is not a riparian area per the definition provided in the LCP due to its ephemeral nature.
No riparian vegetation was identified in the project area, pursuant to the definition of riparian vegetation provided in the LCP. The willow and blackberry plants present on the project site are not growing within Pullman Ditch. Although these species are listed as potential wetland and riparian plants, they can also grow in areas where the groundwater is relatively high; though not within the upper 12 inches normally associated with wetland habitats. It is assumed that these plants are tapping deeper groundwater sources; not the surface water within the ditch itself.
Furthermore, vegetation within the project area contains less than 50 percent riparian species, and is therefore not considered “riparian habitat” according to the LCP or a “riparian corridor” (LCP pages 42 and 66). Culverts extending more than 50 feet located under residential homes immediately north of the project area reduce connectivity for riparian plant and animals. Based on this analysis, this willow patch does not meet the definition of ESHA under the City’s LCP, and no Riparian Habitat or Riparian Corridor is present in the project area. No other ESHA is present within the project area or the surrounding 200-foot-wide study area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
IV. (c). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, would be modified or removed by the proposed project without adequate mitigation. No wetlands were observed in the project area or within the surrounding 200-foot-wide study area (WRA, 2011). Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact on wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, based on the Corps’ determination (Appendix D) all proposed discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the plane of ordinary high water (OHW) in non-tidal waters of the United States typically require Department of the Army authorization and the issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, any impacts to the bed, bank, or channel (below OHW) of Pullman Ditch would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed project includes the placement of an energy dissipater, as illustrated in Figure 2, within Pullman Ditch. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a permit shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of any dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States, as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972.
IV. (d). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would interfere with or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. There are two wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project area: California Red-legged Frog (CRLF) and the San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS).
134
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -22- October 2011 California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs), as defined by the USFWS, are those physical and biological features of a landscape that a species needs to survive and reproduce. For CRLF, the Service has determined the PCEs to be 1) aquatic breeding habitat, 2) aquatic non-breeding habitat, 3) upland habitat and 4) dispersal habitat. Each of these elements is discussed in greater detail below with relation to the project and study areas. The project and study areas are not within USFWS designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2010).
According to USFWS, Dispersal Habitat includes accessible upland or riparian habitat within and between occupied or previously occupied sites that are located within one mile (1.6 km) of each other, and that support movement between such sites. Dispersal habitat includes various natural habitats, and altered habitats such as agricultural fields, that do not contain barriers (e.g., heavily traveled roads without bridges or culverts) to dispersal. Dispersal habitat does not include moderate- to high-density urban or industrial developments with large expanses of asphalt or concrete, nor does it include large lakes or reservoirs over 50 acres (20 ha) in size, or other areas that do not contain those features identified in PCEs as essential to the conservation of the species.
According to California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the nearest documented CRLF population is 0.75 miles east of the project area, in the headwaters of Frenchman’s Creek (WRA, 2011). An additional occurrence is located approximately 1.2 miles to the south adjacent to Pilarcitos Creek. The project area is within the dispersal capabilities of the CRLF occurrence in Frenchman’s Creek; however, Highway 1 and a large nursery complex to the east of the project area comprise a substantial and possibly insurmountable barrier. As mentioned in the PCE definition above, dispersal habitat does not include industrial developments with large expanses of asphalt or concrete, which the nursery complex contains. The development of Miramar is a substantial barrier to the north and the Pacific Ocean is to the west of the project area. If CRLF were to migrate from the mouth of Frenchman’s Creek along the State Beach unit to the area where Pullman Ditch discharges into the incised gully, the frog’s travel up-ditch would be impeded by culverts, including a four-foot drop culvert located approximately 200 feet to the west. In addition, active agricultural fields, horse stables, residential development and public beach access make it unlikely a CRLF would disperse to the project area from this direction.
Due to the lack of connectivity with other suitable habitats, high channelization and potentially high velocity flows during the rainy season in Pullman Ditch, CRLF are not expected to be present in the project area or in the surrounding 200-foot-wide study area.
San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrateaenia) During the summer, snakes may disperse from the typical vegetated aquatic-edge habitat into adjacent areas to feed on amphibians or hibernate in rodent burrows. Typically, San Francisco Garter Snake (SFGS) utilize upland rodent burrows within several hundred feet of their aquatic habitat (McGinnis 2001). Literature suggests that lowland rodent burrows are not utilized for hibernation due to the potential for flooding (McGinnis 2001).
During periods of heavy rain or shortly after, SFGS may make long-distance movements of up to 2 km along drainages within the dense riparian cover, and are not documented to travel over open terrain (McGinnis 2001).
135
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -23- October 2011 The nearest documented SFGS occurrence is located approximately two miles from the project area (CDFG 2010). The location of the SFGS occurrence is characterized by dense riparian habitat, gradual banks, and the presence of CRLF. In contrast, Pullman Ditch lacks the typical vegetative cover and food sources (CRLF). Some vegetative cover does extend a minimum of three feet from the water’s edge along portions of Pullman Ditch; however, water flow in this portion of the ditch travels at a relatively high velocity and therefore, does not provide suitable foraging habitat. Upland basking sites are not present in most places adjacent to Pullman Ditch due to heavy vegetation, development and agricultural practices. Culverts are also located immediately above and below the project area. Furthermore, food sources for all life stages are most likely not present. Sierran Treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) may be present in Pullman Ditch; however, based on the habitat assessment for CRLF, ranid frogs (the primary prey of SFGS, e.g. CRLF) are unlikely to be present.
No suitable aquatic habitat is located within the vicinity of the project area and residential housing and heavily farmed areas preclude most of the study area as potential upland habitat.
There are no streams that connect the project area and the nearest SFGS location, and dense riparian vegetation between the two is therefore lacking. Pullman Ditch has limited vegetative cover. The cover is not contiguous and SFGS would have to travel over open terrain or through culverts within the ditch to reach the project area from the nearest occurrences. SFGS would have to navigate through active agricultural fields and active horse stables in order to reach the study area and Pullman Ditch. These barriers are not insurmountable, but because SFGS are not documented to travel over open terrain and habitat in the study area is suboptimal, it is unlikely SFGS would disperse to Pullman Ditch from the south. In terms of potential SFGS dispersal from the east, Highway 1 (a highly traveled route), the 50+ foot long culverts under the highway, truck and other vehicle parking along the easterly highway right-of-way, and the nursery complex to the east of the Highway all constitute barriers to SFGS movement to or from potential breeding habitat to the east. Furthermore, the lack of connectivity between documented SFGS occurrences, and the absence of continuous vegetative cover along Pullman Ditch indicate Pullman Ditch does not provide suitable dispersal habitat. SFGS are unlikely to occur in the project and study areas.
Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
IV. (e, g). No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if the proposed project would cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources or result in the conversion of oak woodlands. The proposed project is subject to the California Coastal Act (CCA) and the City of Half Moon Bay Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan and Coastal Resources Conservation Standards.
California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Commission (CCC), in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone under the California Coastal Act.
On land the coastal zone varies in width from several hundred feet in highly urbanized areas up to five miles in certain rural areas, and offshore the coastal zone includes a three-mile-wide band of ocean. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the CCA to include 136
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -24- October 2011 (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a CDP from the CCC. The CCA includes goals and policies that constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the CCC and by local governments.
City of Half Moon Bay LCP
The Half Moon Bay Land Use Policies and Map constitute the Land Use Plan of the LCP. The Zoning Code (Title 18 of the Municipal Code, including Chapter 18.20, which regulates Coastal Development Permits) together with the Zoning District Map constitutes the Implementation Plan of the LCP. The primary goal of the LCP is to ensure that the local government’s land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning maps, and implemented actions meet the requirements of the provisions and polices of the Coastal Act at the local level. Coastal Resource Conservation Standards are described in Chapter 18.38 of the LCP and define sensitive habitat and coastal resource areas for conservation to include: sand dunes; marine habitats; sea cliffs; riparian areas; wetland, coastal tidelands and marshes, lakes, ponds, and adjacent shore habitats; coastal or off-shore migratory bird nesting sites; areas used for scientific study, refuges, and reserves; habitats containing unique or rare and endangered species; rocky intertidal zones; coastal scrub communities; wild strawberry habitat; and archaeological resources. Marine and water resources (including riparian habitats) are further defined in Chapter 3 of the LCP Land Use Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with both the CCA and the City of Half Moon Bay’s LCP (see questions IV.a – IV.d). No protected biological resources, such as oak trees or oak woodlands, currently exist on the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect any local policies or ordinances protecting or preserving biological resources or result in the conversion oak woodland and no impact would occur. No further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
IV. (f). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project is inconsistent with mapping or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. The project area is not part of any draft or adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed project is located in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. According the City’s Zoning Code Chapter
18.15.010, a PUD district is intended to provide for a variety of land uses, such as attached and detached single-family residential development, multiple-family housing development, professional and administrative areas, commercial and industrial uses, institutional uses, and public and private open space and recreation opportunities through the adoption of a comprehensive development plan as set forth in the City’s General Plan and Chapter 18 of the Zoning Code. The proposed project would be consistent with the development requirements as defined in Chapter 18.15.010 of the City of Half Moon Bay’s Zoning Code. Approval of the proposed project is pursuant to City review. No project impact on any adopted habitat or conservation plans would occur. No further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
137
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -25- October 2011 V. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
2 b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2 Setting:
Climate change is a shift in the average weather patterns observed on earth, which can be measured by such variables as temperature, wind patterns, storms and precipitation. The temperature on earth is regulated by what is commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and water vapor, absorb heat from the earth’s surface and radiate it back to the surface.
Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons (fluorine, chlorine and bromine). Of all human activities, the burning of fossil fuels is the largest contributor in overall greenhouse gas emissions, releasing carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere.
The resulting increases in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are leading to higher concentrations and a change in composition of the atmosphere. For instance, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen about 30 percent since the late 1800s (National Assessment Synthesis Team [NAST], 2001). Many sources and models indicate that temperatures on earth are currently warming and will continue to warm at unprecedented levels.
The global mean surface temperature has increased by 1.1˚ F since the 19th century (IPCC Synthesis report, 2001), and the 10 warmest years of the last century all occurred within the last 15 years.
The many effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions are still being researched and are not fully known, but are expected to include increased temperatures which would: reduce snowpack, a primary source of drinking water; exacerbate air quality problems and adversely impact human health by increasing heat stress and related deaths; increase the incidence of infectious disease, asthma and respiratory health problems; cause sea levels to rise, threatening urban and natural coastlands; increase pests and pathogens; and cause variations in crop quality and yields.
State of California
In California, the majority of human activity greenhouse gas emissions can be broken down into four sectors: transportation, industrial, electrical power, and agriculture/forestry. The largest source is from the transportation sector.
138
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -26- October 2011 In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-02-05, calling for statewide reductions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Executive Order also called for the creation of a state “Climate Action Team”, which would report to the Governor every two years on both progress toward meeting the targets and effects of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the state.
In the Fall of 2006, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” committing the State of California to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The statute requires CARB to track emissions through mandatory reporting, determine what 1990 emissions were, set annual emissions limits that will result in meeting the target, and identify a list of discrete early actions that directly address greenhouse gas emissions, are regulatory, and can be enforced by January 1, 2010.
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 provide the legal framework for attaining and maintaining ambient air quality standards require that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) designate “nonattainment areas” – portions of California where federal or State ambient air quality standards are not met. Where a pollutant exceeds standards, air quality management plans must be formulated that demonstrate how the standards will be achieved. These plans also provide the basis for the implementing agencies to develop mobile and stationary source performance standards.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is primarily responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing the federal and State ambient air quality standards in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area ’91 Clean Air Plan to implement the requirements of the CCAA of 1988. Since the State ozone standard and the State PM10 standard are exceeded in the Bay Area region, the BAAQMD adopted the 2000 Clean Air Plan on December 20, 2000, and submitted it to the CARB as required by the CCAA. The 2000 Clean Air Plan includes a control strategy review to ensure that the plan continues to include “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone. No State plan is required to meet State PM10 measures.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards. SFBAAB’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history.
Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact.
No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.
In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted new CEQA Guidelines with the purpose to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the SFBAAB. The Guidelines provides BAAQMD-recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. These revised Guidelines supersede the BAAQMD’s previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (BAAQMD 1999).
Impacts
V. (a). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant 139
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -27- October 2011 impact on the environment. The proposed project includes the construction of streets and infrastructure. Sources of construction-related GHGs only include exhaust, for which the same detailed guidance as described for criteria air pollutants and precursors should be followed.
However, the proposed project does not include the construction of any new single-family residences and thus is well below the applicable screening criteria as shown in Table 3-1 of the 2010 Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (reproduced below as Table 1). Therefore, impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions for the construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Construction-related GHG emissions would also be reduced with compliance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
Table 1
Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes (BAAQMD, 2010)
Land Use Type Construction-Related Greenhouse
Gas Screening Size
Single-Family 114 dwelling units
Notes: Screening levels include indirect and area source emissions.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
V. (b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Based on the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines screening criteria, the proposed project would not exceed the threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and operational impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. No further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? 2
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? 2
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 2
140
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -28- October 2011 Setting:
The San Francisco Bay region (including Half Moon Bay) was home to the Costanoan Indian.
These people resided on the Bay side of the San Mateo peninsula. Indian habitation sites have been discovered along the entire San Mateo coast. The City of Half Moon Bay LCP/LUP contains several policies that address archaeological resources as follows:
Policy 6-4
As a part of any Project to construct new roads, trails, sewer or water lines, or other public projects involving substantial excavation which could destroy archeological resources within areas designated on the Map of Potential Archaeological Resources, provision shall be made for an archaeological survey and the opportunity to sample and salvage the site by a qualified archaeologist as part of the construction Project.
Policy 6-5
In the case of any development within the area designated on the Map of Potential Archaeological Resources, the City shall encourage, and require when feasible, such designs and methods of construction as will offer protection for any potential archaeological site.
Impacts:
VI. (a). No Impact. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as: 1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; 2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or 3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. A project-related significant adverse effect would occur if a project were to adversely affect a historical resource meeting one of the above definitions.
The project area is not eligible nor is it listed on the National Register or California State Historic Resource properties, California Historical landmarks, California Points of Historic Interest. No historical or cultural resources are known to exist in the project area. Therefore, no impact to historical resources would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VI. (b). Less than Significant with Mitigation. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources which meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources which constitute unique archaeological resources.
A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources which fall under either of these categories.
The City of Half Moon Bay’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan indicates the generalized location of potentially significant archaeological sites. The project area is not designated by the City’s LCP as containing potential archaeological resources, but is surrounded by such areas (Potential Archaeological Resources Map, LCP page 228). However, the Half Moon Bay region 141
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -29- October 2011 has not undergone an exhaustive archaeological survey, and it is possible there are other sites occur within the City. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to unknown cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CULT–1 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
CULT–1 If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during project excavation or construction, all activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended and the City and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. The project developer, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, shall complete a resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan and submit it to the City's Planning Department for review and approval prior to the continuation of any on-site grading or construction activity.
Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, wood, and shell artifacts; fossils; and features including hearths, structural remains, and historic dumpsites.
VI. (c). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact would occur if a project were to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No known paleontological resources have been noted to occur in the area.
However, it is possible that subsurface earthwork activities may encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would ensure that this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VI. (d). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project were to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No known human remains are interred on the site. However, it is possible that subsurface earthwork activities may encounter previously undiscovered human remains or burial sites. According to California Health and Safety Code 7050.5, upon discovery of human remains outside of a dedicated cemetery, work shall cease until a county coroner makes a report. The county coroner is required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours if the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
142
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -30- October 2011 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
2 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2 iv) Landslides? 2
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 2 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 onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
2 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?
2 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
2 Setting:
The coastal region of California is located at the margin of two lithospheric plates of the earth’s crust; the Pacific plate to the west and the North American plate to the east. The movement of the Pacific plate northward relative to the North American plate results in the accumulation of stress along the margin of the plates. Earthquakes result as the strain is released by the rupture of the earth. The plate motion has resulted in the development of the San Andreas Fault Systems (SAFS), a series of northwest-southeast trending active faults. The SAFS includes the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward-Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, and other active faults. All of these active regional faults are capable of generating damaging earthquakes. The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that there was a 63 percent probability that between 2008 and 2037, a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake will occur within the San Francisco Bay Region.3
The probability of a 6.7 magnitude or greater earthquake occurring along individual faults was estimated to be 21 percent along the San Andreas Fault, 31 percent along the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault, six percent along the Garlock fault, and seven percent along the Calaveras Fault. A site specific geotechnical investigation by Sigma Prime Geosciences was
3 United States Geologic Survey, 2008. Forecasting California’s Earthquakes – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years. Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf. Web Accessed November 30, 2010. 143
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -31- October 2011 conducted in April 2010 and states that the closest active fault to the site is the San Gregorio fault, located about 2.5 km to the east (Appendix A).
Additionally, the report found that the site vicinity is underlain by Holocene-age younger (outer) alluvial fan deposits, described as unconsolidated, fine sand, silt, and clayey silt. Based on four soil borings, the subsurface conditions at the site consist of mostly sandy clay with minor amounts of sand. The clays are typically medium stiff to very stiff and have moderate plasticity, with two plasticity limits measured at 22 and 25. The depth to groundwater was measured at about 7 to 7.5 feet; however, groundwater was not encountered at the eastern side of the project site.
Impacts:
VII. (a). Less than Significant Impact and No Impact.
(i) Earthquake Fault: A significant impact may occur if the project area is subject to fault rupture from a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Fault Zoning Map or based on substantial evidence of a known fault.
According to the Alquist-Priolo Map for San Mateo County, the site is not located in an area subject to fault rupture. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is necessary.
(ii) Seismic Shaking: A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to represent an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to seismically induced ground shaking hazards that are greater than the average risk associated with locations in the Northern California region. The probability of the occurrence of one or more magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquakes occurring from the fault source of the San Gregorio fault between 2002 - 2031 is indicated as 0.10 within a 95% range of confidence. The report indicates that "earthquake probabilities are one key component in estimating the seismic hazard in a region, but not the only one. However, the project only proposes the development of a street and related improvements, which will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. The project area is located within the larger seismically active San Francisco Bay Area region, which has several known seismically active faults. According to the Uniform Building Code’s (UBC) Seismic Hazard Zone map, the entire Bay Area, including the project area, is located in Seismic Zone 4 (as mapped by the California Geological Survey), which has the highest seismic risk (even though no faults are located on the site, faults within the region could cause strong seismic ground shaking in the project area during a large earthquake event). Strong, sustained ground shaking causes most earthquake damage. The strength and duration of shaking at a particular location depends on the earthquake's size, its distance from the location, soil conditions at the location, and details about the rupture itself and the propagation of the seismic wave from it." The probability of strong seismic ground shaking due to ground rupture exists throughout the region. Additionally, the geotechnical report concludes that moderate to large earthquakes are probable along several active faults in the greater Bay Area over a 30 to 50 year design life.
Strong ground shaking should therefore be expected several times during the design life of the project, as is typical for sites throughout the Bay Area. The improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with current earthquake resistance standards. Compliance with California Building Code and Uniform 144
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -32- October 2011 Building Code regulations for seismic safety would lessen potential impacts to a less-than-significant level and no further analysis is required. (iii) Risk of Ground Failure: According to the USGS Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area Map, the site has a moderate susceptibility of liquefaction.4 The
north Coast of San Mateo County was researched and mapped in detail in 1973 and revised in 1976 relative to geological hazards.5
The site-specific geotechnical report
indicates that differential compaction occurs during moderate and large earthquakes when soft or loose, natural or fill soils are densified and settle, often unevenly across a site. No such soils were encountered at the site. Additionally, the report states that the likelihood that liquefaction would pose a significant risk is low because soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, silty sands, and uniformly graded sands. Loose, saturated silty sands were not encountered at the site, and there is a ten-foot clay cap that would reduce ground surface settlement.
Slope stability is indicated as poor to fair ('good' is the highest rating indicating stable hillside geologic structure.) whereas earthquake stability is deemed good to fair and foundation conditions considered good. A "good" rating for earthquake stability is defined as a favorable hillside geologic structure, low landslide or soil creep potential and geologically competent earth materials. The proposed project consists of an application for a CDP, Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately 2.1 acres of ruderal fields and coastal scrub into four lots, and to construct a new on-site storm drain system. No development other than the installation of streets, drainage and other utilities is proposed at this time. The development of single family residences on the four new lots would be evaluated with the submittal of a CDP application in the future. As required by the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit a Grading and Drainage Plan for review and approval. Therefore, impacts related to risk of ground failure would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. (iv) Risk of Landslides: A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if the project is located in a hillside area with soil conditions that would suggest a high potential for landslides. The topography of the site is level and there are no steep slopes within the project area. Therefore, no landslide impacts would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VII. (b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project exposes large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period of time. The soils underlying the project area are classified as presenting slight to no hazard. Project construction activities, such as grading, may increase the potential for erosion to occur at the project area.
This potential effect would be addressed in the project plans for grading and drainage, which would include several features (best management practices) that would reduce soil erosion and
4 USGS San Francisco Bay Region Geology and Geologic Hazards, Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area interactive map. Website: http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/liquefaction/susceptibility.html. Accessed November 30, 2010.
5 Official Map, County of San Mateo, State of California 1973, Geotechnical Hazard Synthesis Map, Prepared by Leighton & Assoc, Relative Slope Stability and Land-Use Planning in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS.
145
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -33- October 2011 would be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts related to soil erosion.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VII. (c, d). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project is built in an unstable area without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for the project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. The project area is within the terrain type of alluvial floodplains and marine terraces with slopes of 5 - 50%.
These materials are described as marine terraces weakly consolidated, slightly weathered, sand and gravel deposits that are generally less than 30 feet thick and occur on flat, gently sloping, wave-eroded platforms along the Pacific coast between sea level and 500 feet above sea level.
As required by the City Engineer, the project's design specifications shall be based on and adequately account for identified underlying geotechnical conditions, particularly expansive soils that reflect a required soils report prepared with engineering calculations and would be prepared prior to issuance of a building permit. The site-specific geotechnical report found that risks associated with ground failure are low. Please refer to Question VII.(a) above. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VII. (e). No Impact. Project construction and operation would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2 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?
2 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
2 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?
2 146
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -34- October 2011 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
2 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?
2 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2 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? 2 Setting:
The proposed project is bordered by residential development to the north, Highway 1 and a commercial nursery to the east, agricultural fields to the south, and Half Moon Bay State Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The western boundary of the project area is 225 feet east of Balboa Boulevard (part of the Half Moon Bay State Beach park road and bike trail). The Half Moon Bay County Airport is located approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the project area. In 2010, ENGEO prepared a limited Phase II environmental site assessment of the portion of the project site occupied by the equipment storage yard (Appendix C1). Based on the sampling and testing performed, ENGEO identified an approximate 6,500-square foot area of the equipment storage yard, S-1 on Figure 2 of the referenced 2010 Phase II report, with concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as motor oil above the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level for residential soil.
ENGEO also conducted a Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site on June 30, 2011 (Appendix C2). The project site was viewed for hazardous materials storage, superficial staining or discoloration, debris, stressed vegetation, or other conditions that may be indicative of potential sources of soil or groundwater contamination. The site was also checked for evidence of fill/ventilation pipes, ground subsidence, or other evidence of existing or preexisting underground storage tanks. The ENGEO report found the following exterior observations:
Structures. Several sheds and storage containers were observed during the site reconnaissance.
Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products in Connection with Identified Uses. Several hazardous substances and petroleum products were observed within the project site during the site reconnaissance. These include primarily petroleum products such as motor oil and gasoline for mechanical operations.
147
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -35- October 2011 Storage Tanks. Two operational above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) and no obvious evidence of existing underground storage tanks was observed during the site reconnaissance. The ASTs were located along the southern boundary near the center of the project site.
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. Numerous drums were observed on the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.
It appeared that most of the drums contained oil.
Hazardous Substance and Petroleum Product Containers. Several hazardous substance and petroleum product containers were observed on the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). No PCB-containing equipment was noted at the time of the reconnaissance.
Pits, Ponds and Lagoons. No pits, ponds or lagoons were observed within the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.
Stained Soil/Pavement. A few sections of stained soil and/or pavement were observed within the project site at the time of the reconnaissance, mostly in localized areas near the storage facilities.
Stressed Vegetation. No signs of stressed vegetation directly associated with adverse environmental conditions were observed on the project site at the time of the reconnaissance.
Solid Waste/Debris. No disposal of solid waste was observed at the subject property.
Wastewater. No wastewater conveyance systems were observed at the project site during the reconnaissance.
Wells. No wells were found within the project site during the reconnaissance.
Septic Systems. No septic systems were found within the project site during the reconnaissance.
The 2011 ENGEO study included a review of local, state and federal environmental record sources (Geocheck, Envirostor, and the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR)), standard historical sources, aerial photographs, fire insurance maps and physical setting sources, a reconnaissance of the project site to review site use and current conditions to check for the storage, use, production or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials and interview with persons knowledgeable about current and past site use. The site reconnaissance and records review did find documentation or physical evidence of soil or groundwater impairments associated with the use of the project site. 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 148
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -36- October 2011 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.
An assessment of potential soil impacts associated with past agricultural use of the project site was conducted as part of the environmental assessment. No evidence of adverse impacts to site soils was noted from the sampling and laboratory analyses.
Impacts:
VIII. (a). Less than Significant Impact. The project would routinely handle and use small quantities of commercially-available hazardous materials, such as household cleaning and landscaping supplies. These materials would not be expected to be used in large quantities or contrary to normal use, and therefore would not pose a threat to human health or the environment. Development of the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the public or the environment related to the routine transport, use, and handling of hazardous materials, since such activities are not expected.
VIII. (b). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Based on the sampling and testing performed on the project site in 2010, ENGEO identified an approximate 6,500-square foot area of the equipment storage yard, S-1 on Figure 2 of the referenced 2010 Phase II report, with concentration of TPH as motor oil above the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level for residential soil. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ–1 would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-thansignificant level.
Additionally, all potentially hazardous materials used during the construction of the proposed project would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local standards and regulations.
Operation of the proposed project would not include the use of hazardous materials that would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ–1 The project applicant shall remove the affected soil to an anticipated depth of 6 inches across this area (6,500 ft2
; ±120 cubic yards). A minimum of four
confirmation samples shall be collected from the base of the excavation and analyzed for TPH as motor oil following excavation. The excavated material could be either analyzed and off hauled to an appropriate disposal facility or encapsulated beneath a pavement section within the planned development.
VIII. (c). No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if the project area is located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school site, and is projected to release toxic emissions, which would pose a health hazard beyond regulatory thresholds. The project would not emit hazardous emissions, nor handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. No school is located within 0.25 miles of the site. Therefore, no impacts are expected and no further analysis is required.
149
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -37- October 2011 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VIII. (d). No Impact. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various State agencies to compile lists of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized release from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells, and solid waste facilities from which there is known migration of hazardous waste and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis. This question would apply only if the project area is included on any of the above referred to lists and therefore would pose an environmental hazard to surrounding sensitive uses. The project area is not a predetermined hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Therefore, no impacts would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VIII. (e, f). No Impact. A significant project-related impact may occur if the proposed project were placed within a public airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport, and subject to a safety hazard. The Half Moon Bay County Airport is located approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the project area. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip that would subject area residents and workers to a safety hazard. Therefore, there would be no impact to people working on the project area from the operation of an airport or a private airstrip. No impacts would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VIII. (g). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a plan. The proposed project includes the construction of streets and infrastructure and therefore is not expected to result in a significant increase of daily vehicle trips at the site. Thus the proposed project would not impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and no impacts to adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. No further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
VIII. (h). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and would pose a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. The project area is located outside areas designated "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA" as recommended by CAL FIRE and depicted on the Fire Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) map6
. No impact would occur and no further
analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
6 California Department of Forestry and Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA for San Mateo County. Website:
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_mateo/fhszl_map.41.pdf. Web accessed November 30, 2010. 150
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -38- October 2011 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards, conflict with water quality objectives, fail to meet waste discharge requirements,
significantly degrade any surface water body or groundwater, or adversely affect the beneficial uses of such waters, including public uses and aquatic, wetland and riparian habitat?
2 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)?
2 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 (i.e. within a watershed)?
2 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 (e.g., due to increased impervious surfaces) in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (i.e. within a watershed)?
2 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes?
2 f) Result in a significant increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters (marine, fresh, and/or wetlands) during or following construction (considering water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and typical stormwater pollutants such as heavy metals, pathogens,
petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash)?
2 g) Result in an increase in any pollutant for which a water body is listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act? 2 h) 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 map?
2 i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 2
j) 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?
2 151
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -39- October 2011 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2
Setting:
Pullman Ditch, which trends along the northern project boundary on adjacent private properties, is a man-made ephemeral drainage for an upslope highway corridor segment, intensely developed, farmed, and managed agricultural operations, and adjacent sub-watershed lands to the east. Pullman Ditch is not mapped or designated as a blue-line (intermittent or perennial) stream by the City, CCC (2004) or USGS (1997), nor as a “riparian habitat” by the City. A preliminary hydrology report was prepared by Michael D. Ashley for the proposed project (Appendix A). Off-site contributing area to the project area is limited to surface flow from the westerly side of Cabrillo Highway and right-of-way onto the project area, approximately 0.14 acres. The site gently slopes westerly at 1.5%. Surface flow from the project area enters Pullman Ditch west of the site near Naples Avenue.
The project area is protected from upstream surface flow by the "raised" Cabrillo Highway.
Stormwater runoff from the easterly side of the Highway is diverted to the two 24-inch California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) culverts, discharging into the unimproved Pullman Ditch. It is reported that "all" surface stormwater at the greenhouse enterprise is used for irrigation, and excess flow is retained in on-site storage basins. The drainage basin contributory to the CalTrans culvert comprises 140.2 acres and lies entirely easterly of Cabrillo Highway.
The contributing area includes: a portion of the westerly slope of the coastal hills; agricultural greenhouses; agricultural growing fields; the swale within the CalTrans right of way; and, the paved Cabrillo Highway.
Water Quality
The quality of surface and groundwater at the project area is affected by land uses within the watershed that drain through the site and the composition of geologic materials. Drainage from the site could contribute to the quality of water in the Pacific Ocean.
Water quality monitoring data for Pullman Ditch is not available. However, it is possible that water quality has been affected by developed portions of the watersheds, leaks of fuel or lubricants, tire wear, and fallout from exhaust contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters. Residues of these substances could be incorporated into the runoff from the site and upstream areas and discharged to receiving waters.
Precipitation and Climate
The City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean results in Mediterranean climate conditions; dry foggy summers and cool moist winters. The average annual rainfall of 26.4 inches occurs primarily 152
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -40- October 2011 from November through March7. Average temperatures range from 46.8° F in the winter to
61.5° F in the summer8
. High winds and severe rainstorms can occur in the area.
Impacts:
IX. (a). Less than Significant with Mitigation. The discharge of stormwater from the storm drain system is regulated primarily under the Federal Clean Water Act and California’s PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) implements these regulations at the regional level. The project’s net increase in impervious area is approximately 0.31 acres (WRA, 2011). The proposed project includes the construction of a storm drain parallel to and south of Pullman Ditch as well as a storm drain outlet that would flow into the western end of the ditch. The new storm drain would be connected to the two existing 24-inch CalTrans culverts which currently discharge runoff into Pullman Ditch near Highway 1. The new storm drain has been sized to accommodate post project flows as well as runoff from the drainage basin east of Cabrillo Highway. Storm water design for the project site will be consistent with Best Management Practices. Site drainage for the four lots will include on-site percolation for increased flow consistent with current storm water discharge policies. This storm drainage work will be completed as part of the home building of the individual lots. The residential development is not a part of this project.
During the life of the proposed project, oil, grease, and heavy metals from automobiles and petroleum and hydrocarbons from fuels of developed areas, as well as pesticides applied to landscaping, and trash, etc., could be washed into the storm drain system that flows to the Pacific Ocean. The discharge of stormwater from the storm drain system is regulated primarily under the Federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
The RWQCB implements these regulations at the regional level. Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has been mandated to develop National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application requirements for various storm water discharges, including those from municipal storm drain systems and construction sites. These requirements would apply to the proposed project. During project construction, soil disturbances at the project area may impact stormwater quality. These potential impacts would be reduced by the implementation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD–1 impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
HYD–1 The applicant shall prepare a SWPPP subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction and the following San Mateo County Storm Water Pollution Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be included in the SWPPP to ensure that water quality of surface runoff is maintained and no siltation of downstream waterways would occur:
• All project grading would take place in the dry season between April 1 and October 31 to minimize immediate erosion/siltation effects. • Construction materials and waste shall be handled and disposed of properly in compliance with applicable law to prevent their contact with stormwater.
7 World Climate website: http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N37W122. Web accessed November 30, 2010.
8 Ibid.
153
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -41- October 2011 • Discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses shall be controlled and prevented.
• Sediment controls such as straw mulch, silt fences, sediment basins or traps and/or other measures shall be employed during construction. • Tracking dirt or other materials off-site shall be avoided and off-site paved areas and sidewalks shall be cleaned regularly using dry sweeping methods. • The contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding construction BMPs.
IX. (b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes deep excavations resulting in the potential to interfere with groundwater movement or includes withdrawal of groundwater or paving of existing permeable surfaces important to groundwater recharge. The project does not propose major excavation work. Minor grading would be required at the site, and it would not intersect the groundwater table. The proposed project does not include the use of wells but does involve an increase in impermeable surface (streets).
However, the increase in impermeable surfaces would be relatively minor compared to the size of the site and thus would not significantly affect groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
IX. (c). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a project results in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that would result in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project. The project does not propose to substantially alter the course of a stream or river, nor substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. Pullman Avenue would be extended 60 feet with a cul-de-sac and the extension of Champs Elysee Boulevard would be constructed in the existing right-of-way from Washington Boulevard to the project area with a cul-de-sac. Sidewalks, gutters, and culverts would be added to bring these streets to City standards. The runoff associated with the increase in impermeable surface created by the proposed project would flow into a new storm drain culvert that would be installed from Cabrillo Highway westerly to Naples Avenue as a replacement facility for the existing Pullman Ditch.
The new storm drain would be sized to adequately accommodate runoff from the project site and project area. Storm water design for the project site will be consistent with Best Management Practices. Site drainage for the four lots will include on-site percolation for increased flow consistent with current storm water discharge policies. This storm drainage work will be completed as part of the home building of the individual lots. The residential development is not a part of this project.
However, the County of San Mateo requires that post-development peak flow and velocity must be less than or equal to predevelopment peak flow and velocity in areas where there are no existing downstream storm drain systems. In addition, if appropriate Best Management Practices are not used during on-site grading and operation of the proposed project, the project could result in potentially significant impacts related to erosion or siltation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD–1 and HYD-2, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
154
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -42- October 2011 HYD-2 Upon submittal of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a Drainage Plan to include all existing and proposed drainage improvements at the project area.
The Drainage Plan shall demonstrate that all stormwater is retained on-site with no off-site release (100 percent containment). Drainage improvements shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works or City Engineer.
The Drainage Plan shall include a drainage system maintenance program. The applicant shall prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance for the drainage facilities to the City for review and approval. The Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer.
IX. (d). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a project results in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding conditions affecting the project area or nearby properties. See answers IX (a) and IX (c). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2.
IX. (e). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a project would increase the volume of storm water runoff to a level which exceeded the capacity of the storm drain system serving a project area. See answers IX (c) and IX (g). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2.
IX. (f, g). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a project includes potential sources of storm water pollutants that would have the potential to substantially degrade water quality or result in an increase in any pollutant for which a water body is listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. See answer IX (a).
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure HYD-1.
IX. (h). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to 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 map. The Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No. 0603190005 A dated June 3, 1986 indicates that the project area is located in Zone C, which is defined as areas outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, the proposed project is not within a 100-year flood zone, and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
IX. (i, j). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. The project is not located in a 100-year flood zone or downstream of any body of water that is contained by levee or dam; therefore, it would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. No impact would occur and no additional analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
155
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -43- October 2011 IX. (k). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Tsunami hazard is present in the low-lying coastal areas of San Mateo County, particularly at the mouth of drainages. The inland extent of run-up is not known; it has been mapped to the 20-foot contour. Inundation could be greater, depending on local coastal, tidal, and storm conditions. The City’s LCP/LUP Geological Hazards Map indicates that the project area is within the tsunami inundation area. However, the proposed project would not expose persons or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The proposed project includes the construction of streets and infrastructure. Construction of the proposed project would be temporary and the City of Half Moon Bay has adopted a "Tsunami Ready" program which includes (with cooperation with the County of San Mateo Emergency Services) tsunami warning sirens, announcements disseminated over the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and NOAA weather all-hazard radio system, automated telephone notification, text message on cellular phones and email addresses. In the event of a distance source tsunami, residents in the hazard areas will be instructed to go inland or to an official Evacuation Shelter (ES). The nearest ES is located at the Half Moon Bay High School, approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the project area. Future build-out of the proposed project would require a separate Geological report and mitigation measures to address these hazards. Community preparedness is the most effective measure to reduce potential loss of life and with the existing City warning systems in place would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Physically divide an established community. 2
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?
2 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 2
Setting:
According to the LCP, the proposed project area is designated as Planned Development and zoned as Planned Unit Development (PUD). It is bordered by residential development to the north, Highway 1 and a commercial nursery to the east, agricultural fields to the south, and Half Moon Bay State Beach and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The western boundary of the project area is 225 feet east of Balboa Boulevard (part of the Half Moon Bay State Beach park road and bike trail).
156
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -44- October 2011 Impacts:
X. (a). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were sufficiently large enough or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier within an established community. The project includes the installation of infrastructure and streets. No physical division of an established community would result from the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
X. (b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is inconsistent with applicable land use plans or zoning designations and would cause adverse environmental effects, which these regulations are designed to avoid or mitigate. The City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan designates the site (“project area”) as Planned Development (PD). The project area is located in a Planned Unit Development zoning district, which is consistent with the LCP.
No substantial changes or alterations to present or planned uses are proposed by the project.
The proposed project consists of an application for a CDP, Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately 2.1 acres of ruderal fields and coastal scrub into four lots, and to construct a new on-site sanitary sewer pipe, water, and storm drain system. In addition, the project would be consistent with applicable plans and policies including:
City of Half Moon Bay LCP – Chapter 9 (Development)
• Policy 9-3: All new development permitted shall comply with all other policies of the Plan (New development means any project for which a Coastal Permit is required under Section 30106, 30250, 30252, 30600, and 30608 of the Coastal Act).
Project Applicability: The proposed project is an application for a coastal development permit. The City of Half Moon Bay has the ultimate decision-making authority regarding a given project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies; however, the proposed project would generally be consistent with Policy 9-3.
• Policy 9-4: All new development shall have available water and sewer services and shall be accessed from a public street or shall have access over private streets to a public street.
Project Applicability: The proposed project includes the construction of streets and infrastructure to conform to this policy.
• Policy 9-5: The base permitted residential density for any parcel located within an area designated Planned Development (PD) District shall be no more than 2 units per acre, except as provided with such District under Subsection 9.3.3 through 9.3.16.
Project Applicability: The proposed project is the application for a CDP to subdivide 2.1 acres into four separate lots. No development other than the installation of streets, drainage and other utilities is proposed at this time. The development of single-family residences on the four new lots would be evaluated with the submittal of a CDP application in the future. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.
157
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -45- October 2011 • Policy 9-8: The entire site shall be planned as a unit.
Project Applicability: The proposed project is planned as a complete unit. See above (Policy 9-5).
California Coastal Act
• Coastal Act Policy 30250(a) – New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it, or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas, shall be permitted only where 50% of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
Project Applicability: The proposed project is in close proximity to existing developed areas that would be able to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.
• Coastal Act Policy 30211 - Development Not to Interfere with Access: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Project Applicability: Development includes any "placement or erection of any solid material or structure..." The project does not block physical or visual access to or along the coast. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy. • Coastal Act Policy 30212 - New development projects: Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or, (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway.
Project Applicability: There is adequate access in the vicinity of the project area.
Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with this policy.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
X. (c). No Impact. A significant impact may also occur if a project were to conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The City does not have a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The City does have a Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP), amended in 1993, that addresses standards for biological review. This project was reviewed within the LCP framework and does not conflict with those plans.
158
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -46- October 2011 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2 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?
2 Impacts:
XI. (a, b). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project area is located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally-important mineral resource, or if the proposed project would convert an existing or future regionally-important mineral extraction use to another use, or if the proposed project would affect access to a site used or potentially available for regionally-important mineral resource extraction. The existing site conditions do not present evidence of mineral resources that are value to the region. The LCP does not designate the project area as rich in mineral resources. The construction of the proposed project would neither 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 nor 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. No impact would occur and no additional analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) 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?
2 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 2
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 2 159
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -47- October 2011 XII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
2 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?
2 Setting:
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The Aweighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq – A Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. • Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.
• Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. • CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account for noise sensitivity in 160
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -48- October 2011 the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. For residential uses, environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA.9 Noise levels greater than 85 dBA
can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55–60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60–75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65– 80 dBA).
It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound.
Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases.
Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or barriers, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively.
Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA.10
The existing noise environment in the project area is dominated by vehicular traffic along Highway 1. The City of Half Moon Bay has established plans and policies, which are designed to limit noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses. These plans and polices are contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance and LCP/LUP. The most noise sensitive land use in Half Moon Bay is residential development. Residential development is spread throughout the City. It is considered especially noise sensitive because (1) considerable time is spent by individuals at home, (2) significant activities occur outdoors, and (3) sleep disturbance is most likely to occur in a residential area. Additionally, the City of Half Moon Bay has a number of public and private educational facilities, churches, and parks that are considered noise sensitive.
9 Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2003 (in coordination with the California Department of Health Services).
10 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, 1971.
161
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -49- October 2011 Impacts:
XII. (a). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would generate excess noise that would cause the ambient noise environment at the project area to exceed noise levels in excess of local standards. The construction activities associated with the project typically involve the use of heavy equipment such as tractors, loaders, pavers, and concrete mixers. Trucks would be used to deliver equipment and materials and to haul away waste materials. Smaller equipment, such as jack hammers and pneumatic tools, could also be used throughout the site during the construction phase. This equipment would generate both temporary steady-state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the project area.
The EPA has compiled data related to the noise-generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment and noise levels that can be achieved with implementation of feasible control measures. Noise levels generated by heavy equipment can range from approximately 76 dB(A) to 89 dB(A) when measured at 50 feet and 70 dB(A) to 83 dB(A) when measured at 100 feet, without implementation of noise reduction measures. The noisiest pieces of equipment that would be used during the project’s construction phase would include jackhammers and pavers, which produce noise levels of approximately 75 and 80 dB(A) at 50 feet with implementation of the required feasible noise reduction control measures. As with all construction equipment, these noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately six dB(A) per doubling of distance. The residential land uses located adjacent to the project area to the north and east have balconies/outdoor areas on that face the project area.
Some of these residents would experience temporary, periodic, noticeable increases in noise levels during the project’s construction period, even with implementation of the noise control measures. Therefore, project impacts related to temporary noise increases associated with project construction would be significant but adherence to City standards for potential noise impacts during project construction, as well as the implementation of the following mitigation measures to require compliance with local ordinances addressing construction hours and practices, would reduce potential noise impact during project construction and operation to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
NOISE–1 In addition to compliance with existing local, State and federal regulations, the following measures shall be required for new construction associated with the project:
• Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sundays and holidays. (City of Half Moon Bay Ord. 8-89 §1(part), 1989). However, the director of public works/city engineer may, upon written application, modify the hours of construction whenever, in his/her reasonable judgment, there is good cause for such modification due to emergency or impracticality. (Ord. 8-89 §1(part), 1989).
• All construction vehicle and equipment shall be fitted with working mufflers. • All stationary noise generating equipment, such as compressors, should be located as far as possible from existing houses.
• Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off when not in use. 162
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -50- October 2011 • Mobile equipment shall not run idle near existing residences. • A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be a member of City staff or employee of the general contractor) will determine the cause of the complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site.
XII. (b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to generate excessive vibration during construction or operation activities. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Vibration can result from a source (e.g., subway operations, vehicles, machinery equipment, etc.) causing the adjacent ground to move, thereby creating vibration waves that propagate through the soil to the foundations of nearby buildings.
This effect is referred to as groundborne vibration. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.
Due to the limited nature of project construction and that heavy equipment such as pile drivers would not be required, the project is not anticipated to cause exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during project construction. Impacts during project construction would be less than significant and no impacts would occur during project operation.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XII. (c). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing ambient noise levels without the proposed project. As discussed previously, it is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound.
Generally, in order to achieve a 3 dBA CNEL increase in ambient noise from traffic, the volume on any given roadway would need to double. The proposed project consists of an application for a CDP, Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately 2.1 acres of ruderal fields and coastal scrub into four lots, and to construct a new on-site sanitary sewer pipe and storm drain system. The proposed project does not include an increase in the overall amount of vehicle trips. Given this small amount of vehicle trips to the project area, the existing traffic volumes on the roadways in the project vicinity would not be doubled. As a result of the project, no long-term significant increase in ambient noise levels is expected. Thus, impacts associated with traffic noise levels from the proposed project would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. 163
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -51- October 2011 Other non-traffic related operational noise levels associated with the proposed project would be similar or less than the noise levels associated the surrounding residential area. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XII. (d). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels above existing ambient noise levels without the proposed project. See answers XII (a) and XII (c).
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
XII. (e, f). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were 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. A significant impact may also occur if a project would expose people residing or working in the in the vicinity of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact 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)? 2 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 2
Setting:
The existing parcel would be subdivided into four parcels with a fifth parcel held in reserve as open space. The City’s LCP Land Use Plan designates the project area as Planned Development (PD). The project area is located in a Planned Unit Development zoning district, which is consistent with the LCP. The existing parcel would be subdivided into four parcels with a portion of Parcel D designated Reserve (open space). The proposed project would also be consistent with the zoning density for the site. The proposed project would not include development other than infrastructure including the installation of streets, sidewalks, storm drainage infrastructure, and other utilities. Lot sizes would range from 0.35 acre (15,266 sq ft) to 0.455 acre (19,815 sq ft) (Ashley, 2010). Each lot would be able to support one dwelling unit. 164
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -52- October 2011 Impacts:
XIII. (a-c). Less than Significant Impact and No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would locate new development such as homes, businesses, or infrastructure, with the effect of substantially inducing growth in the project area that would otherwise not have occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude. A significant impact may also occur is the project would result in the substantial displacement of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
The proposed project includes the extension of roadways and other infrastructure, which would indirectly induce population growth in the area. The proposed project also consists of subdividing a parcel into four lots. The area is zoned as Planned Unit Development (PUD) under the City’s LUP and thus future growth has been anticipated. Therefore, such impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts to population and housing related to the displacement of housing or people would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XIV. 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 following public services:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Fire protection? 2
b) Police protection? 2
c) Schools? 2
d) Parks? 2
e) Other public facilities? 2
Impacts:
XIV. (a-e). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact to public services may occur if a project resulted in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, or the 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 objective for any of the following public services.
The proposed project consists of an application for a CDP, Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map to divide approximately 2.1 acres of ruderal fields and coastal scrub into four lots, and to construct a new on-site sanitary sewer pipe and storm drain system. The proposed project would not introduce new land uses and associated population that could increase demands for public services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or 165
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -53- October 2011 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 public service. Impacts would be less than significant and no additional analysis is necessary.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XV. RECREATION
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact 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? 2 b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
2 Impacts:
XV. (a, b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would include substantial employment or population growth which could generate an increased demand for public park facilities that exceeds the capacities of existing parks and causes premature deterioration of the park facilities. A significant impact may also occur if a project includes the construction or expansion of park facilities and such construction would have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
The proposed project would not introduce new land uses and associated population that could increase demands for recreational facilities. Therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities in a substantial manner nor require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
166
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -54- October 2011 XVI. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact 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?
2 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? 2 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?
2 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
2 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2
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?
2 Setting:
The project area is located approximately + 20 feet west of Highway 1 and 600 feet landward of the Pacific Ocean, and +9,300 feet northwest (2.0 miles, up coast) from the intersection of Highways 1 and 92. The western boundary of the project area is 225 feet east of Balboa Boulevard (road and bike trail portions of Half Moon Bay State Beach). There is no current publicly available access to the site.
Impacts:
XVI. (a). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The proposed project would include the extension of Pullman Avenue and Champs Elysee Boulevard. Pullman Avenue would be extended by 60 feet and would include a cul-de-sac. The Champs Elysee Boulevard extension would be constructed in the existing right of way from Washington Boulevard to the site and include a culde-sac as well. The operation phase of the proposed project would not increase vehicle trips in the area. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required. 167
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -55- October 2011 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVI. (b). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the adopted California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and San Mateo County thresholds for a significant traffic impact would be exceeded. Vehicle trips on Pullman Avenue and Champs Elysee Boulevard would be generated primarily by the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Highway 1 is the only designated Countywide Congestion Management Program (CMP) network street near the project area. To address the increasing public concern that traffic congestion is impacting the quality of life and economic vitality of the State of California, the CMP was enacted by Proposition 111. The CMP designated a transportation network including all State highways and some arterials within the County to be monitored by local jurisdictions. If the Level of Service (LOS) standard deteriorates on the CMP network, then local jurisdictions must prepare a deficiency plan to be in conformance with the CMP program.
Per the CMP, the level of service standard on this roadway is LOS E. The City of Half Moon Bay's General Plan Circulation Element designates a threshold LOS E during the weekday commute hours and level of service LOS F during the peak weekend hour for the Highway 1 segment in the project vicinity. The operational phase of the proposed project would not alter existing and projected LOS as reported in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. As described above in XVI.(a), no traffic would be generated as a result of the operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to existing traffic on roadways that are designated as part of the CMP transportation network and impacts would be less than significant. No further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVI. (c). No Impact. This question would apply to the proposed project only if it were an aviation-related use. The project area does not contain any aviation-related uses, and the proposed project would not include the development of any aviation-related uses. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No further analysis or mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVI. (d). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to include a new roadway design, introduce a new land use or project features into an area with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or if project access or other features were designed in such a way as to create hazardous conditions. See answer XVI (a). The proposed project would not introduce hazardous conditions through new roadway design or project features. Adequate sight distance would be available for motorists to access and depart the project area. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVI. (e). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project design would not provide emergency access meeting the requirements of the Coastside Fire Protection District or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the project area or adjacent uses. The proposed project would include the construction of new roadways; however, these roads would not have a significant impact on existing circulation patterns, street design or access. In addition, the proposed project would not create features 168
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -56- October 2011 which might generate hazardous road conditions. The ingress and egress to the project area would be from extensions of Pullman Avenue and Champs Elysee Boulevard. Pullman Avenue would be extended 60 feet with a cul-de-sac and the extension of Champs Elysee Boulevard would be constructed in the existing right-of-way from Washington Boulevard to the project area with a cul-de-sac. No new design features are proposed that would create new traffic hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. Additionally, the Coastside Fire Protection District would condition the project prior to future build-out to provide adequate measures to ensure emergency access and maneuverability on Champs Elysee Boulevard and Pullman Avenue.
Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVI. (f). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project does not impact or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation based upon its location. Therefore, no impact would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2
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? 2 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
2 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
2 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?
2 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 2 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 2
169
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -57- October 2011 Impacts:
XVII. (a, b). No Impact and Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A significant impact may also occur if a project would increase water consumption or wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project area would be exceeded. The project does not involve any uses that would discharge wastewater to sanitary sewer or on-site wastewater systems (septic). The proposed project includes the installation of sewer lines but because no new homes would be built, the project would not generate sewage. Therefore, there would be no impacts and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVII. (c). Less than Significant with Mitigation. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Based on the Corps’ determination (Appendix D) all proposed discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the plane of ordinary high water (OHW) in non-tidal waters of the United States typically require Department of the Army Corps authorization and the issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, any impacts to the bed, bank, or channel (below OHW) of Pullman Ditch would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed project includes the placement of an energy dissipater, as illustrated in Figure 2, within Pullman Ditch. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-thansignificant level.
Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
XVII. (d). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to be identified, or that existing resources would be consumed at a pace greater than planned for by purveyors, distributors, and service providers. The project does not involve or require water service from the Coastside Water District. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVII. (e). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project area would be exceeded. The proposed project includes new infrastructure, including an 8” sewer line and road construction. However, the proposed project would not produce any wastewater and therefore, the project would not interfere with any wastewater treatment provider’s service capacity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVII. (f). Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste. The project consists of an application 170
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -58- October 2011 for a CDP, Planned Unit Development Plan, Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map and the construction of roads and infrastructure. The construction phase of the project would not generate a significant amount of solid waste nor place any burden on the existing permitted capacity of any landfill or transfer station. Impacts would be less than significant and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVII. (g). No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would generate solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste, and no significant regulatory impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no impact would occur and no further analysis is required.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
YES: Potentially Significant Impact NO: Less Than Significant With Mitigation NO: Less Than Significant Impact NO: No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining 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?
2 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) 2 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
2 XVIII. (a). Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project may result in several impacts associated with Biological Resources and Cultural Resources that would be significant if left unmitigated. Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CULT-1, and CULT-2 would fully mitigate all potential impacts to levels of less than significant. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts.
XVIII. (b). Less than Significant Impact. Other projects in the vicinity of the proposed project include: 1) one single family residence (SFR) at 2805 Alameda Avenue; 2) continuation of a City-sponsored bike trail on the south side of Highway 1 from Wave Avenue to Frenchman’s Creek, and the crossing to the north side of Highway 1 from Frenchman’s Creek to Nurserymens’ Exchange across from Washington Boulevard; 3) one SFR on Washington Boulevard (APN 048-121-050); 4) one SFR at 2812 Champs Elysee Boulevard (APN 048-112- 210); and 5) one SFR at 2788 Pullman Avenue (APN 048-121-090). 171
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -59- October 2011 All cumulative impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Given the size of the project and its impacts and mitigation measures, the incremental effects of the project are not considerable when considered in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. As discussed above, the project does not have a significant cumulative impact.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact and impacts would be less than significant.
XVIII. (c). Less than Significant Impact. As noted in the responses to Question I through XVII above, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. Thus, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to adverse effects on human beings.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), which state the following:
In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.
The public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. "Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight.
There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both.
Table 2 lists the potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Table 2 describes the timing of implementation of the mitigation measures (i.e., when the measure will implemented) and the City Department or individual responsible for ensuring implementation of the measures. Finally, Table 2 describes the City Department of individual responsibility for monitoring the mitigation measures.
172
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -60- October 2011 Table 2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1: Project-related emissions The project includes grading and development of streets and infrastructure, but not the construction or operation of homes. Although the project-generated traffic would not result in a significant long-term impact on local or regional air quality, shortterm construction impacts could represent a significant adverse impact without mitigation.etc.). However, the proposed project meets all of the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for construction-related air quality impacts. Therefore, with implementation of the following BAAQMD mitigation measures, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure AQ–1 The following practices shall be followed during all future phases of site preparation and construction activities at the site:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other
loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be
limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be
paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
• 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. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone
number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: City of Half Moon Bay
Initials _______ Date _______
173
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -61- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
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.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: Special-status Plants No special status plant species were considered to have a high potential to occur in the project or study areas due to limited native habitat and levels of disturbance on-site. Although, special-status plants are unlikely to occur within the project area, they may be found within the study area. Nineteen (19) species, including 17 plants and two mosses, were determined to have a moderate potential to occur in the study area. Potential disturbance to these species is considered potentially significant. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure BIO–1 Seasonally-appropriate protocol-level plant surveys in the study area are recommended to account for the 19 species. These surveys should cover the blooming periods of all species listed in Section 4.2.1 of the Biological Resource Assessment (WRA, 2011). If any special status plant species are identified in the study area or project area, development activities shall avoid these areas and appropriate buffer areas established around such species. A qualified biologist shall determine the size and location of any buffer. Fencing or other barriers shall be installed to prevent disturbance of the special status species ESHA and buffer area until project construction is complete. If a suitable protective ESHA buffer cannot be preserved, mitigation shall include restoration and improvement of habitat within the remaining buffer area or other suitable areas on the project site. Restoration shall include removal of invasive species that threaten the continuance of the special status species and its habitat.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Initials _______ Date _______
174
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -62- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Impact BIO-2: Nesting Birds Nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other regulations may be impacted by construction during the bird breeding season from February through August. Ideally, the clearing of vegetation, removal of buildings and the initiation of construction can be done in the non-breeding season from September through January. If construction occurs during the breeding season (1 February through 31 August) then impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of pre-construction nesting bird surveys required in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure BIO–2a Impacts to Raptors and Tree-Nesting Raptor Nests: The following measure was designed to ensure that tree-nesting raptors (e.g., hawks, falcons, owls, etc.) are not disturbed during the breeding season. A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for tree-nesting raptors in all trees occurring within 250-feet of project building envelopes within 30 days of the onset of ground disturbance, if such disturbance will occur during the breeding season (1 February through 31 August). If nesting raptors are detected on the site during the survey, a construction buffer of 250 feet shall be established around each active nest for the duration of the breeding season or until it has been confirmed that all young have fledged and are independent. A biological monitor would monitor the site to ensure nesting raptors are not adversely affected by construction activities and to determine when young are independent. Pre-construction surveys during the non-breeding season are not necessary for tree-nesting raptors, as they are expected to abandon their roosts if disturbed by construction.
BIO–2b Impacts to Other Nesting Birds: Harm or
disruption to nesting birds and/or their eggs or young as a result of project construction would be considered a violation of state and federal law, and therefore, would be considered a potentially significant impact. The following measures were designed to ensure that special status and common nesting birds are not disturbed during the breeding season.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay /Construction Personnel Initials _______ Date _______
175
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -63- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
To avoid impacting nesting birds (including CDFG Species of Special Concern), one of the following shall be implemented:
a) Conduct grading and construction activities,
including the removal of Monterey pine trees from September 1st through January 31st, when birds are not likely to be nesting
on the site;
- OR -
b) Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting
birds if construction is to take place during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). A qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey no more than 5 days prior to initiation of grading to provide confirmation of the presence or absence of active nests on or immediately adjacent to the study area. If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of the nest shall be deferred until the young birds have fledged. A minimum exclusion buffer of 50 feet shall be maintained during construction, depending on the species and location. The perimeter of the nest-setback zone shall be fenced or adequately demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey 176
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -64- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
report by the qualified biologist verifying that (1) no active nests are present, or (2) that the young have fledged, shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of grading in the nestsetback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur.
Impact BIO-3: Impacts to Bats The project area and surrounding area support potential bat habitat. Bat roosts are protected by CDFG and removal of occupied roosts would be considered a significant impact. Trees and snags may be removed outside of the maternity roosting season (September through March) without performing preconstruction bat surveys. If construction occurs during the maternity roosting season, then impacts to bats would be potentially significant. Preconstruction bat surveys required in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure BIO–3 If construction occurs during the roosting season then pre-construction surveys for bats shall take place. Additionally, unused buildings may provide winter roost habitat and shall be surveyed for roosts if removed between November and March. If special status bat species are detected during surveys, appropriate, species and roost specific mitigation measures shall be developed. Such measures may include postponing removal of trees, snags or structures until the end of the maternity roosting season or construction of species appropriate roosting habitat within, or adjacent to the study area. Consultation with CDFG may be warranted to determine appropriate mitigation measures if roosts are disturbed or destroyed.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay/Construction Personnel Initials _______ Date _______
177
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -65- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Impact BIO-4: Impacts to Duskyfooted Woodrat The shrub areas in the study area have the potential to support the San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat. Destruction of Woodrat stick homes would represent a potentially significant impact. Although no stick houses were found during the November 2010 site visit, if stick houses are observed during construction they should be avoided if possible. If avoidance is not possible, then implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure BIO–4 Conduct pre-construction surveys. If stick houses are found and if avoidance is not feasible, the houses shall be dismantled by hand under the supervision of a biologist. If young are encountered during the dismantling process, the material shall be placed back on the house, a buffer of 25 feet using orange construction fencing shall be erected, and the house shall remain unmolested for two to three weeks in order to give the young enough time to mature and leave the house. After two to three weeks, the nest dismantling process may begin again. Nest material shall be moved to suitable adjacent areas that will not be impacted Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Initials _______ Date _______
Impact BIO-5: Impacts to Monarch Butterfly Monarch butterflies have known winter roosts just to the south of the study area. No impacts would be expected if tree removal is scheduled between March and September. If tree removal were to occur outside of this period then impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would lessen potentially Mitigation Measure BIO–5 If construction activities or vegetation removal is scheduled during the winter from October through February, then a monarch winter roost survey shall be conducted. Detection of a roost may require consultation with CDFG.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Initials _______ Date _______
178
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -66- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
significant impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than SignificantImpact BIO-6: Impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States No wetlands were observed in the project area or within the surrounding 200-foot-wide study area (WRA, 2011). Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact on wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. However, based on the Corps’ determination (Appendix D) all proposed discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the plane of ordinary high water (OHW) in non-tidal waters of the United States typically require Department of the Army authorization and the issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, any impacts to the bed, bank, or channel (below OHW) of Pullman Ditch would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed project includes the placement of an energy dissipater within Pullman Ditch. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Mitigation Measure BIO-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a permit shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of any dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States, as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Initials _______ Date _______
179
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -67- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Measure BIO-6 would lessen this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than SignificantCULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CULT-1: Impacts to Archaeological Resources The Half Moon Bay General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element indicates that the generalized location of potentially significant archaeological sites. The project area is not designated as containing potential archaeological resources, but is surrounded by such areas. However, the Half Moon Bay region has not undergone an exhaustive archaeological survey, and it is possible there are other sites occur within the City. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to unknown cultural resources. Mitigation Measure CULT–1 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Mitigation Measure CULT–1 If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during project excavation or construction, all activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended and the City and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. The project developer, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, shall complete a resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan and submit it to the City's Planning Department for review and approval prior to the continuation of any on-site grading or construction activity. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, wood, and shell artifacts; fossils; and features including hearths, structural remains, and historic dumpsites.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay/Construction Personnel Initials _______ Date _______
180
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -68- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than SignificantHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALSImpact HAZ-1: Release of Hazardous Materials In 2010, ENGEO prepared a limited Phase II environmental site assessment of the portion of the project site occupied by the equipment storage yard (ENGEO 2010). Based on the sampling and testing performed, ENGEO identified an approximate 6,500 square foot area of the equipment storage yard, S-1 on Figure 2 of the referenced 2010 Phase II report, with concentration of TPH as motor oil above the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level for residential soil. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ–1 would lessen this potentially significant impact to a less-thansignificant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure HAZ–1 The project applicant shall remove the affected soil to an anticipated depth of 6 inches across this area (6,500 ft2; ±120 cubic yards). A minimum of four confirmation samples shall be collected from the base of the excavation and analyzed for TPH as motor oil following excavation. The excavated material could be either analyzed and off hauled to an appropriate disposal facility or encapsulated beneath a pavement section within the planned development.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay/Construction Personnel Initials _______ Date _______
181
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -69- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITYImpact HYD-1: Stormwater Quality During project construction, soil disturbances at the project area may impact stormwater quality. These potential impacts would be reduced by the implementation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). With the implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD–1 impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure HYD–1 The applicant shall prepare a SWPPP subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction and the following San Mateo County Storm Water Pollution Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be included in the SWPPP to ensure that water quality of surface runoff is maintained and no siltation of downstream waterways would occur:
• All project grading would take place in the dry
season between April 1 and October 31 to minimize immediate erosion/siltation effects. • Construction materials and waste shall be handled
and disposed of properly in compliance with applicable law to prevent their contact with stormwater. • Discharge of all potential pollutants, including
pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses shall be controlled and prevented. • Sediment controls such as straw mulch, silt fences,
sediment basins or traps and/or other measures shall be employed during construction. • Tracking dirt or other materials off-site shall be
avoided and off-site paved areas and sidewalks shall be cleaned regularly using dry sweeping methods. • The contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding construction BMPs.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay/Construction Personnel Initials _______ Date _______
182
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -70- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Impact HYD-2: Erosion and Siltation The County of San Mateo requires that post-development peak flow and velocity must be less than or equal to predevelopment peak flow and velocity in areas where there are no existing downstream storm drain systems. In addition, if appropriate Best Management Practices are not used during on-site grading and operation of the proposed project, the project could result in potentially significant impacts related to erosion or siltation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD–1 and HYD-2, impacts would be less than significant. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure HYD-2 Upon submittal of improvement plans, the applicant shall submit a Drainage Plan to include all existing and proposed drainage improvements at the project area. The Drainage Plan shall demonstrate that all stormwater is retained onsite with no off-site release (100 percent containment). Drainage improvements shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works or City Engineer. The Drainage Plan shall include a drainage system maintenance program. The applicant shall prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance for the drainage facilities to the City for review and approval. The Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay/Construction Personnel Initials _______ Date _______
NOISEImpact NOISE-1: Construction Noise The residential land uses located adjacent to the project area to the north and east have balconies/outdoor areas on that face the project area. Some of these residents would experience temporary, periodic, noticeable increases in noise levels during the Mitigation Measure NOISE–1 In addition to compliance with existing local, State and federal regulations, the following measures shall be required for new construction associated with the project:
• Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sundays and holidays. (City of Half Moon Bay Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Frequency: As needed Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay/Construction Personnel Initials _______ Date _______
183
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -71- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
project’s construction period, even with implementation of the noise control measures. Therefore, project impacts related to temporary noise increases associated with project construction would be significant but adherence to City standards for potential noise impacts during project construction, as well as the implementation of the following mitigation measures to require compliance with local ordinances addressing construction hours and practices, would reduce potential noise impact during project construction and operation to a lessthan-significant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Ord. 8-89 §1(part), 1989). However, the director of public works/city engineer may, upon written application, modify the hours of construction whenever, in his/her reasonable judgment, there is good cause for such modification due to emergency or impracticality. (Ord. 8-89 §1(part), 1989). • All construction vehicle and equipment shall be
fitted with working mufflers.
• All stationary noise generating equipment, such as
compressors, should be located as far as possible from existing houses. • Machinery, including motors, shall be turned off
when not in use.
• Mobile equipment shall not run idle near existing
residences.
• A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated who
will be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be a member of City staff or employee of the general contractor) will determine the cause of the complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site.
UTILITIESImpact UTIL-1: New Storm Drainage Facilities Based on the Corps’ determination (Appendix D) all proposed discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the plane of ordinary high water (OHW) in non-tidal waters of Mitigation Measure UTIL–1 See Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
Implementation Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Monitoring Monitoring Responsibility: Project Applicant/City of Half Moon Bay Initials _______ Date _______
184
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -72- October 2011 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Responsibility
& Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
the United States typically require Department of the Army authorization and the issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, any impacts to the bed, bank, or channel (below OHW) of Pullman Ditch would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed project includes the placement of an energy dissipater within Pullman Ditch. This is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would lessen this potentially significant impact to a less-thansignificant level. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Frequency: As needed
185
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -73- October 2011
REFERENCES
Ashley, Michael D. (2010). Tentative Parcel Map prepared for Stoloski & Gonzales, Inc.
Prepared by Michael D. Ashley, September 2010.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District – CEQA Guidelines. (2010). Web retrieved January 24, 2011 from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQAGUIDELINES.aspx California Department of Forestry and Protection, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA for San Mateo County. Website:
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_mateo/fhszl_map.41.pdf. Web accessed November 30, 2010.
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program website. Accessed at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm, November 29, 2010.
City of Half Moon Bay (2006). Coastal Resource Conservation Standards, Zoning Code, Title
18. CCC-HMB-MAJ-1-05. April 13, 2006.
City of Half Moon Bay, Certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
County of San Mateo Important Farmland Map (2008). California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Website:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/smt08.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2011.
County of San Mateo, State of California 1973, Geotechnical Hazard Synthesis Map, Prepared by Leighton & Assoc, Relative Slope Stability and Land-Use Planning in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS
ENGEO (2010). Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Half Moon Bay Property; June 7, 2010.
ENGEO (2011). Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Half Moon Bay Property, August 3, 2011.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001) Synthesis Report.
Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2003 (in coordination with the California Department of Health Services).
National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) (2001): Climate change impacts in the US. A report of the National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global Climate Change Research Program, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117 (1971). Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers.
Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. (2010). Geology/Soils Study Report: Cabrillo Highway Property, APN 064-311-050, Half Moon Bay, California. May 26, 2010. 186
City of Half Moon Bay Recirculated Initial Study
North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Project -74- October 2011 USGS, 2008. Forecasting California’s Earthquakes – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years. Website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/fs2008-3027.pdf. Web Accessed November 30, 2010.
USGS San Francisco Bay Region Geology and Geologic Hazards, Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area interactive map. Website:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/liquefaction/susceptibility.html. Accessed November 30, 2010.
World Climate website: http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/grid.pl?gr=N37W122. Web accessed November 30, 2010.
WRA, Inc. (2011). North Cabrillo Highway Subdivision Biological Resource Assessment.
Prepared for the City of Half Moon Bay.
187
Appendix A
Preliminary Hydrology Report
188
189
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
Minor Subdivision: APN 048-133-010
Cabrillo Highway @ Knewing Avenue
Half Moon Bay, CA.
Prepared for:
Stoloski & Gonzalez, Inc.
Prepared by:
)LANNfNG DEPT.
FE!? 1 6 2010
RECEIVED
FEBRUARY 2010
INDEX:
Title Sheet 1
Vicinity Map 2
Existing Drainage 3
Project Description 4
Contributing Area 5
Design Method 6
Preliminary Design 7
Design Alternative 8
Intensity - SMCo 9
Intensity - CalTrans 10-12
190
The project site lies northerly ofFrenchmans Creek at the northern end of the City of Half Moon Bay, westerly and adjacent to Cabri/lo Highway (State Route 1). The project site is slightly over two acres in area, defined as APN 048-133-010. The site lies northerly of Surf Beach Tract an undeveloped subdivision from 1906, and southerly of Naples Beach Subdivision (City of Naples) from 1907.
The State Beach property bounds the project site on the west through a 20' wide strip ofland.
The project site has highway frontage on the east, unimproved street frontage on Knewing Avenue (30' wide) to the south, and street frontage from Pullman Avenue, Champs Elysee Boulevard, Alameda Avenue & Naples Avenue to the north. Champs Elysee Boulevard is undeveloped from the project site northerly to Washington Boulevard.
VICINITY MAP
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWlNG AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 2 OF 12
191
SCALE: 1"=200'
Offsite contributing area to the project site is
limited to surface flow from the westerly side
of the Highway and right ofway onto the
project site, approximately O. 14 acres. The
site gently slopes westerly at 1.5%. Surface
flow from the project site enters the "Pullman
ditch" west of the site near Naples Avenue.
The project site is protected from upstream
surface flow by the "raised" Cabrillo Highway.
Storm water ronoff from the easterly side of
the Highway is diverted to the two 24"
CalTrans culverts, discharging into the
unimproved "Pullman ditch". A description of
this contributing area east of the Highway is
described under "Contributing Area", Page 5
of this report.
Under current operating conditions storm
water flow is significantly reduced to the two
24" CalTrans culverts. It is reported that "all"
surface storm water at the greenhouse
enterprise is used for irrigation, and excess
flow is retained in onsite storage basins.
SURFS
(Paper Subdivls on)
Without the onsite storage major storm flows
would exceed the capacity of the two 24"
CalTrans culverts and would pond at the inlet
and within this Highway swale. The two 24"
CalTrans culverts limit the flow to the
"Pullman ditch".
This report considers two offsite conditions:
first, current conditions with storm water
retained in storage basins at the greenhouse
enterprise; second, full release of storm water
from the contributing watershed.
EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWING AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 3 OF 12
192
SURFB~ (Paper SubdivisIon)
SCALE: 1"=200'
/1
JI
;'" I
I
I
I
I
I
~-----_._----------t
The proposed project is a four lot minor
subdivision with access from Pullman
Avenue and Champs Elysee Blvd. to the
north. The single family residential project to
be developed as a "Planned Unit
Development".
Storm water design for the project site will be
consistent with Best Management Practices.
Site drainage for the four lots will include
onsite percolation for increased flow
consistent with current storm water discharge
policies. This storm drainage work will be
completed as part of the home building of the
individual lots.
Stormwater runoff from 140 acres to the east
of Cabrillo Highway is concentrated in a
CalTrans culvert at the northeast comer of
the site. This storm discharge flows from the
CalTrans culvert into an undeveloped earth
channel known as "The Pullman Ditch". The
ditch lies northerly of the site and within the
Naples Beach Subdivision without benefit of
easement or maintenance.
Stoloski & Gonzalez, Inc. proposes to
construct a culvert from the Cabrillo Highway
CalTrans culvert to the vicinity of Naples
Avenue, approximately 950 feet. The
proposed culvert will be constructed within a
20 foot wide easement on the applicant's land
and will be offered for dedication to the City
of Half Moon Bay for maintenance.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWlNG AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 4 OF 12
193
SCALE: 1"=600'
The drainage basin contributory to the
CalTrans culvert comprises 140.2 acres and
lies entirely easterly of Cabrillo Highway.
The contributing area includes: a portion of
the westerly slope ofthe coastal hills;
agricultural greenhouses; agricultural growing
fields; the swale within the CalTrans right of
way; and, the paved Cabrillo Highway.
The CalTrans culvert discharges into the
"Pullman ditch" westerly of the Highway. The
banks ofthe ditch have been built up and the
existing ground generally slopes away from
the ditch. Thus very little surface drainage
westerly of the Highway flows into "The
Pullman Ditch".
Description
Slopes
Greenhouses
Fields & Residence
Highway Paving
HighwayRIW
Area (Acres)
50.7 62.9
20.5 1.1
5.2 CONTRIBUTING AREA
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWING AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 5 OF 12
194
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
SUMMARY:
The Contributing Drainage Basin area was evaluated
for the 10-year and 100-year storms.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERJA:
Time of Concentration:
Time of concentration was calculated for overland flow
using the State of California formula and nomograph.
For determining flow velocity in the CalTrans culvert a Manning "n" of 0.013 was used.
(
11.9 L3)0.385 Tc= H
Tc =time ofconcentration, houlS
L =Length oftravel, miles
H =fall, feet for length, L
Time of Concentration:
Storm water runoff (without retention) based on the
"Rational Formula" is computed to be:
Rainfall intensity was determined for the 10-year and
100-year storm events using the CalTrans method.
Results were compared to the County of San Mateo
method for 10-year and 100-year. References for and
determination ofthese rainfall intens;t;es are included in the pages entitle "San Mateo County Method" and
"Ca/Trans Method".
The tributary area ofthe watershed is less than 0.5
square miles; therefore flow rate of storm runoff is
calculated by use of the Rational Method, given as:
Q =CIA, where:
Q = The peak runoffrete in cubic feet per
second (cts) at the point ofanalysis.
C =Dimensionless runoff coefficient
I = Rainfall intensity in inches per hour
(inlhr) corresponding to the time of
concentration in minutes (min).
A =The drainage basin 8f98 in aCf9S (ac).
Runoff Coefficient:
In accordance with the San Mateo County Department
of Public Works the runoff coefficient is determined
based on the percentage of impervious area onsite.
The following C values were used in our analysis:
Greenhouse Areas 0.85
Growing Field 0.3
Hillside Slopes 0.4
Highway Pavement 0.85
Highway Right of Way 0.4
A composite C value was computed as follows:
Description Area (Acres) "C"Value CxA
Greenhouses 62.9 0.85 53.46
Fields & Residence 20.5 0.30 6.15
Hillside Slopes 50.7 0.40 20.28
Highway Paving 1.1 0.85 0.94
HighwayRIW 5.2 0.35 1.82
82.65 Composite "c" Value =82.65/140.2 =0.59
REACH "A"
L =1770'
IiH =410-90 =320'
Overland flow, peak to
toe at Frenchmans Creek
5 minutes
REACH"C"
L = 1250'
IiH = 7~55 = 20'
Earth channel toe
to highway swale;
slope = 1.6%
2.5 fps = 8 minutes
Tc =24t minutes
Rainfall Intensity:
110 =1.68 cfs
1100 =2.62 cfs
REACH "B"
L = 625'
liH = 90-75 = 15'
Earth channel at toe;
slope = 2.4%
3.5 fps =3 minutes
REACH "0"
L =1250'
IiH = 55-38 = 17'
Highway swale to
highway culvert;
slope = 1.4%
2.5 fps =8 minutes
139 cfs
217 cfs
Maximum Flow due to existing two 24" culverts:
The two 24" culverts limit the flow to the Pullman ditch to approximately 66 cubic feet per second.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWlNG AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 6 OF 12
195
!
I
SCALE: 1u=200'
This report has identified a design flow to the
entrance of the two 24" CalTrans culverts at
139 cfs (10 year return frequency). (See
Sheet 6 - Method ofAnalysis). This project
proposes to construct a 48" culvert from the
existing CalTrans culvert westerly
approximately 950 lineal feet to the west at
Naples Avenue.
The inlet construction and modifications of
the proposed culvert may be within the
CalTrans right of way and therefore an
encroachment permit will be required. (Note
that CalTrans is proposing to reconstruct the
discharge into the Pullman ditch.)
The discharge of the storm drainage pipe will
be above the existing Granada Sanitary
Sewer District 10" diameter main to protect
the facility. An energy dissipater will be
required due to the exit velocity from the pipe.
The discharge of the proposed culvert will
require an energy dissipater and connection
to the existing ditch. This work may require
construction outside the project (within
Naples Avenue and perhaps the State Beach)
to conform to the existing conditions.
Encroachment permits will be required for this
work from the appropriate agencies.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWING AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 7 OF 12
196
!
I
SCALE: 1"=200'
ALTERNA rIVES: This page reserved for
alternative storm solutions.
The Engineer has been advised that there
may be concern with filling of the Pullman
ditch due to environmental concerns. The
following alternative is intended to provide an
alternate plan to respond to that concern.
ALTERNA TlVE B-1:
This Alternative B-1 proposes that the
Pullman ditch remain and continues to carry
minor storm flows with available capacity.
Flow would be restricted through an 18"±
discharge to the Pullman ditch. An overflow
structure at Cabrillo Highway would direct
flow exceeding the capacity of the Pullman
ditch to a new 48" culvert.
JlVfngsd
sntrQl?(;s
hsadJvall
ALTERNA TlVE B-2:
This Alternative B-2 proposes to backfill the
existing Pullman ditch; construct a 36" culvert
to carry the capacity of the existing 36"
CalTrans culvert. Currently major storms
exceeding the capacity of the two 24" culverts
pond at the culvert entrance.
Prior to filling the existing "Pullman Ditch",
verify any existing discharges to ditch and
modify drainage, revise accordingly (i.e. roof
rain water leaders, yard drains). Install
perforated subdrain and backfill.
DESIGN ALTERNATIVE liB"
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWING AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 8 OF 12
197
(Count!! (F=L2)
r 1
Tc (10) (100)
k:) 294 4.32
II 284 4.15
12 275 4.02
13 2.66 3.88
J4 2.56 3.74
15 246 3.DO
16 238 3.50
n 23/ 3.-39
18 2.E 3.2S
19 2./6 3.n
x:> 2.08 3aii
25 f!;O 2.32
30 ill £95
,s" f14t«, CcufIt!J R4flf411 FaKdf
- 0'. 22-/856 r:•L2
SAN MATEO COUNTY METHOD
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWING AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 9 OF 12
198
o 5 10
IAHAHR
KllofMten
a eb H
Mil••
10 A
f' ." . -'. ".'
Q201-1l'
~.-.... O~
0,00,
l'
lIUn: OF CAUfORllrA
D[P*RTII ENT OF TRAN5POllTATlOII
[CALTRANSI - DISTRICT ..
DESIGN RAINFALL INTENSITIES - MAP "rl
i-HOUR ,l-IN-l00-YEARS ISOHYETS (I.uoa)
(•P10 lSOPLETHS' AS USED WITH CHART •A' )
,.. -lM'..1 tIt. r..hllltlt'·o-e ,,......., .....",..,......... It .......... 1__• ..,11 ,_Tt_ _.. __.__ I£i!I£
C .,, •..OAAI-.Ct&II:ItJ......,_
.A • •..41A.... I_, U.&.ltJ _._,_
. O. ""·-'S./It.DA."'/IAS-1I1. --.,.- O. _."...s-/"aA~"1. "'·Iff__ ..,..--=I~lf;;]-"''''_/-
CALTRANS METHOD
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 048-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWING AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 10 OF 12
199
!TATE Of' CALIFORNIA
DE"'RTIIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(CA~TRAIfSi - DISTRICT.
DESIGN RAINFALL VARIATIONS - MAP ·V"
ZONES AND SUBZONES OF SIMILAR PATTERNS
OF INTENSITY VARIATION. AS FUNCTIONS
OF VARIATIONS OF DURATION AND FREQUENCY
,. -'''1''71 "', , htt t' .. Ollr.Ko,.~,.rMU , ..""' II,..,.. of,... (Jell, tMO-.I_ IITI. ,.. n......., .....Ion..-.I .. _ ...-..,.-4..... .
CALTRANS METHOD
ill!!!P 0" 6_·/Il4 iI_Hq /l.1f."J __
t:. " ./I(QA. ,_'/ /I..I ...J _·_s_ o "_-_S/MIU.•"'V _ ,,.,IM 0" _·/1(.../.4..... / ...1 _._IN"""
1_.llUU1ll£ JS-_1 "Jt",.,
1·_' 14·-' -'11._-- -,._-
10·... • JllO.Yl!All! IllTUIITT RaTIOS
PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT
PREPARED FOR STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
MINOR SUBDIVISION: APN 046-133-010
CABRILLO HIGHWAY @ KNEWlNG AVENUE
HALF MOON BAY, CA
JANUARY 2010 PAGE 11 OF 12
200
201
Appendix B
Geotechnical Report
202
203
Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. Effective Solutions
May 26, 2010
Mark Stoloski
Stoloski & Gonzalez, Inc.
727 Main Street
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
Re: Geology/Soils Study Report: Cabrillo Highway Property, APN 064-311-050, Half Moon Bay, California.
Sigma Prime Job No. 10-119
Dear Mr. Stoloski:
As per your request, we have performed a geology/soils study for the proposed development of the property on Cabrillo Highway, APN 064-311-050, Half Moon Bay, California. This report includes geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed 4-foot diameter culvert, with preliminary comments pertaining to the suitability of the site for development with houses. The accompanying report summarizes the results of our field study, laboratory testing, and engineering evaluations, and presents a geologic assessment of the property and recommendations regarding construction of a culvert across the property.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions concerning our study, please call.
Yours,
Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc.
Charles M. Kissick, P.E.
111 Vassar Street, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 (650) 728-3590 fax 728-3593 204
GEOLOGY/SOILS STUDY
CABRILLO HIGHWAY PROPERTY,
APN 064-311-050,
HALF MOON BAY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
MARK STOLOSKI
STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ, INC.
727 MAIN STREET
HALF MOON BAY, CA 94019
PREPARED BY:
SIGMA PRIME GEOSCIENCES, INC.
111 VASSAR STREET
HALF MOON BAY, CALIFORNIA 94019
MAY 26, 2010
205
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................1
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................1
2. FINDINGS ................................................................................................2
2.1 GENERAL......................................................................................2
2.2 SITE CONDITIONS........................................................................2
2.3 REGIONAL AND LOCAL GEOLOGY ............................................2
2.4 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..............................................2
2.5 GROUNDWATER ..........................................................................2
2.6 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY ...........................................................3
2.7 2007 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS.....................3
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................5
3.1 GENERAL......................................................................................5
3.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..................................................................5
3.3 EARTHWORK................................................................................6
3.3.1 Clearing & Subgrade Preparation ..........................................6
3.3.2 Excavation..............................................................................6
3.3.3 Fills.........................................................................................7
3.3.4 Compaction............................................................................7
3.4 FOUNDATIONS.............................................................................7
3.5 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ......................7
4. LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................8
5. REFERENCES.........................................................................................9 TABLES
TABLE 1 - HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES
TABLE 2 - SEISMIC PARAMETERS
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 - SITE MAP
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING
206
1. INTRODUCTION
We are pleased to present this geology/soils study report for the proposed development of the property on Cabrillo Highway, APN 064-311-050, Half Moon Bay, California, at the location shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, and to provide a geologic evaluation of the property.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property covers an area of about 2.1 acres, and is to be subdivided into four buildable parcels plus a parcel to be reserved as open space. To get access to the four parcels, two roads, Pullman Avenue, and Champs Elysee Boulevard, will be extended from the north. Runoff from the east side of Highway 1 currently flows along the northern boundary of the property in a man-made ditch. The proposed project will include a new buried culvert within a 20-foot wide easement just inside the northern property line. The culvert will be 4 feet in diameter, and about 930 feet long. This study focuses on the subsurface conditions as they relate to the proposed culvert, with preliminary discussions on soil conditions as they relate to building foundations.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
In order to complete this project we have performed the following tasks:
• Reviewed published information on the geologic and seismic conditions in the site vicinity;
• Geologic site reconnaissance;
• Subsurface study, including 4 soil borings at the site; • Engineering evaluation of the subsurface data; and
• Preparation of this report presenting our assessment of the geologic site conditions.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 1
207
2. FINDINGS
2.1 GENERAL
The site reconnaissance and subsurface study were performed on April 26, 2010. The subsurface study consisted of advancing 4 soil borings with continuous drive sampling. Each soil boring was advanced to a depth of 10 feet.
The borings, numbered B-1 through B-4, are shown in Figure 2, Site Plan. The boring logs and the results of the laboratory tests on soil samples are attached in Appendix A.
2.2 SITE CONDITIONS
At the time of our study, the site was undeveloped. The western side of site is routinely plowed but was not planted at the time of our site study. Vegetation consisted of assorted grasses and a line of cypress trees along the south boundary. The eastern side of the site features some barns, storage sheds, and heavy equipment. The drainage easement for the proposed culvert alignment follows a line of trees of varying sizes; the culvert should be able to avoid most of the trees.
2.3 REGIONAL AND LOCAL GEOLOGY
Based on Brabb et al (1998), the site vicinity is underlain by Holocene-age younger (outer) alluvial fan deposits, described as unconsolidated, fine sand, silt, and clayey silt.
2.4 SITE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on the four soil borings, the subsurface conditions at the site consist of mostly sandy clay with minor amounts of sand. The clays are typically medium stiff to very stiff. The clays have moderate plasticity, with two plasticity limits measured at 22 and 25.
2.5 GROUNDWATER
The depth to groundwater was measured at about 7 to 7.5 feet in Borings B-2 through B-4. Groundwater was not encountered in Boring B-1, at the eastern side of the property.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 2
208
2.6 FAULTS AND SEISMICITY
The site is in an area of high seismicity, with active faults associated with the San Andreas fault system. The closest active fault to the site is the San Gregorio fault, located about 2.5 km to the east. Other faults most likely to produce significant seismic ground motions include the San Andreas, Hayward, Rodgers Creek, and Calaveras faults. Selected historical earthquakes in the area with an estimated magnitude greater than 6-1/4, are presented in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1
HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES
Date Magnitude Fault Locale
June 10, 1836 6.51 San Andreas San Juan Bautista
June 1838 7.02 San Andreas Peninsula
October 8, 1865 6.32 San Andreas Santa Cruz Mountains
October 21, 1868 7.02 Hayward Berkeley Hills, San Leandro April 18, 1906 7.93 San Andreas Golden Gate
July 1, 1911 6.64 Calaveras Diablo Range, East of San Jose October 17, 1989 7.15 San Andreas Loma Prieta, Santa Cruz Mountains (1) Borchardt & Toppozada (1996)
(2) Toppozada et al (1981)
(3) Petersen (1996)
(4) Toppozada (1984)
(5) USGS (1989)
2.7 2007 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS
Based on the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) and our site evaluation, we recommend using Site Class Definition D (stiff soil) for the site. The other pertinent CBC seismic parameters are given in Table 2 below, for both the proposed western-most lot, and the proposed eastern-most lot.
Table 2
CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
SS S1 Fa Fv SMS SM1 SDS SD1
West
End 1.968 0.917 1.0 1.5 1.968 1.375 1.312 0.917
East
End 1.954 0.907 1.0 1.5 1.954 1.361 1.303 0.907
Because the S1 value is larger than 0.75, Seismic Design Category E is recommended, per CBC Section 1613.5.6. The values in the table above were obtained from a USGS software program which provides the values based on the latitude and longitude of the site, and the Site Class Definition. The latitudes and Stoloski – May 26, 2010 3
209
longitudes we used were 37.4887 and –122.4521, respectively for the west end, and 37.4894 and –121.4509, respectively for the east end, and were accurately obtained from Google EarthTM. These same values can be obtained directly from maps in the CBC, however the scale of the map makes it impractical to achieve satisfactory accuracy. The map in the CBC was derived from the same work that led to the USGS software. The remaining parameters were also obtained by the same USGS program.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 4
210
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 GENERAL
It is our opinion that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed culvert, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed during design and construction. Detailed recommendations for construction of the culvert are presented in the following sections of this report.
The site will be suitable for single family homes, but site-specific subsurface studies will be required for each individual home site.
Because subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the location of our borings, and to observe that our recommendations are properly implemented, we recommend that we be retained to 1) Review the project plans for conformance with our report recommendations and 2) Observe and test the earthwork and foundation installation phases of construction.
3.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
We reviewed the potential for geologic hazards to impact the site, considering the geologic setting, and the soils encountered during our investigation. The results of our review are presented below:
• Fault Rupture - The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo special studies area or zone where fault rupture is considered likely (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974). Therefore, active faults are not believed to exist beneath the site, and the potential for fault rupture to occur at the site is low, in our opinion.
• Ground Shaking - The site is located in an active seismic area.
Moderate to large earthquakes are probable along several active faults in the greater Bay Area over a 30 to 50 year design life. Strong ground shaking should therefore be expected several times during the design life of the structure, as is typical for sites throughout the Bay Area. The improvements should be designed and constructed in accordance with current earthquake resistance standards.
• Differential Compaction - Differential compaction occurs during moderate and large earthquakes when soft or loose, natural or fill soils are densified and settle, often unevenly across a site. No such soils Stoloski – May 26, 2010 5
211
were encountered at the site. It is our opinion that the likelihood of significant damage to the culvert from differential compaction is low. • Liquefaction - Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated sandy soils lose strength and flow like a liquid during earthquake shaking. Ground settlement often accompanies liquefaction. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, silty sands, and uniformly graded sands. Loose, saturated silty sands were not encountered at the site, and there is a ten-foot clay cap that would reduce ground surface settlement. Therefore, in our opinion, the likelihood that liquefaction– induced ground settlement will significantly damage the culvert is low.
3.3 EARTHWORK
3.3.1 Clearing & Subgrade Preparation
After the site is cleared of buildings and heavy equipment, all additional deleterious materials, including topsoil, roots, vegetation, designated utility lines, etc., should be cleared from the proposed culvert alignment. The actual stripping depth required will depend on site usage prior to construction, and should be established by the Contractor during construction.
3.3.2 Excavation
The excavation for the culvert can be dug with conventional earth moving equipment. The sides of the excavation should remain generally stable, with little caving or sloughing, provided the work is completed in a timely manner. Keeping the trench open for an extended period of time may result in some caving. The trench walls should be shored or sloped if people are to work in the trench, in accordance with OSHA regulations. It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide a stable excavation.
The excavation may encounter groundwater, which was encountered in our subsurface study at about 7 feet below ground surface. The contractor should be prepared to pump water from the trench and to maintain a dry working surface so that a firm subgrade is provided for the pipe.
The excavation should extend a minimum of 6 inches beyond the sides and bottom of the pipe, with a minimum of 30 inches of ground cover, if possible. It appears as if the existing site grades will not allow 30 inches of cover over the pipe, as the pipe would then be too deep to meet with the existing drainage under the Coastal Trail. The Grading Plan for the culvert should take this into account and provide a solution.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 6
212
3.3.3 Fills
The pipe trench should be backfilled with imported pipe zone material. The pipe zone material shall consist of a well-graded sand in a matrix of up to 20 percent non-expansive fines. The native soil that is removed from the trench can be used to backfill the existing adjacent drainage ditch.
3.3.4 Compaction
The backfill that is place in the existing drainage ditch should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in height, and compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1157-78. The trench backfill should be moisture conditioned to 3-5 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 92% of the maximum dry density.
3.4 FOUNDATIONS
This section refers to foundations for proposed houses only. These recommendations are preliminary and should be refined on a site-specific basis for permitting of each individual house. Based on the limited extent of our subsurface study, the houses can be founded on a pier and grade beam foundation, or a mat slab foundation. The fairly high expansive potential of the soils make a shallow spread footing foundation potentially problematic. The sitespecific studies should include deeper soil borings, to a minimum depth of 20 feet.
3.5 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The earthwork phases of construction of the culvert should be observed and tested by us to 1) Establish that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design; 2) Observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations; and 3) Allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations in this report are based on a limited number of borings. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are then exposed, it will be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 7
213
4. LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the owner for specific application in developing geotechnical design criteria, for the currently planned 4- foot diameter culvert at the property with APN 064-311-050 in Half Moon Bay, California. This report is not adequate for final geotechnical design of any houses on the property. Site-specific soils reports will be required for each house. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with geotechnical engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. The report was prepared to provide engineering opinions and recommendations only. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design or location of the project, or if any future improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless 1) The project changes are reviewed by us, and 2) The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are modified or verified in writing.
The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation; the currently planned improvements; review of previous reports relevant to the site conditions; and laboratory results. In addition, it should be recognized that certain limitations are inherent in the evaluation of subsurface conditions, and that certain conditions may not be detected during an investigation of this type.
Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result in changes in our conclusions or recommendations. If such changes do occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in light of those changes.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 8
214
5. REFERENCES
Borchardt, G. and Toppozada, T.R., 1996, Relocation of the “1836 Hayward Fault Earthquake” to the San Andreas Fault, Abstracts, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December, San Francisco.
Brabb, E. E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.W., 1998, Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California, USGS OFR 98-137.
California Building Code, 2007. California Code of Regulations. Title 24, Part 2 Volume 2, Effective January 1, 2008.
Jennings, C.W., 1996, Preliminary Fault and Geologic Map, State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Scale 1:750,000.
International Conference of Building Officials, April, 1997, 1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 2 Structural Engineering Design Provisions.
International Conference of Building Officials, February, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. (To be used with 1997 Uniform Building Code)
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 1, March, pp. 173-188.
Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, USGS Open File Report 96-706, CDMG Open File Report 96-08, 33p.
Shamoto, Y., Zhang, J-M, and Tokimatsu, K., 1998, Methods for Evaluating Residual Post-Liquefaction Ground Settlement and Horizontal Displacement, Special Issue of Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, No. 2, September, pp 69-83.
Toppozada, T.R., Real, C.R., and Park, D.L., 1981, Preparation of Isoseismal Maps and Summaries of Reported Effects for pre-1900 California Earthquakes, CDMG Open File Report 81-11 SAC.
Toppozada, T.R., 1984, History of Earthquake Damage in Santa Clara County and Comparison of 1911 and 1984 Earthquakes.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 9
215
United States Geological Survey, 1989, Lessons Learned from the Loma Prieta, California Earthquake of October 17, 1989, Circular 1045.
United States Geologic Survey, 11/20/2007, Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.8.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 1999, Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000 to 2030 – A Summary of Findings, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-517, version 1.
Stoloski – May 26, 2010 10
216
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The soils encountered during drilling were logged by our representative, and samples were obtained at depths appropriate to the investigation. The samples were taken to our laboratory where they were carefully observed and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The logs of our borings, as well as a summary of the soil classification system, are attached.
Several tests were performed in the field during drilling. The standard penetration resistance was determined by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall, and recording the blows required to drive the 2-inch (outside diameter) sampler 24 inches. The standard penetration resistance is the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of an 18-inch drive. Because the sampler was driven 24 inches instead of 18 inches, the blow counts are a modification of a standard penetration test. Accordingly, we use engineering judgment when evaluating the soils. The results of these field tests are presented on the boring logs.
The boring logs and related information depict our interpretation of subsurface conditions only at the specific location and time indicated. Subsurface conditions and ground water levels at other locations may differ from conditions at the locations where sampling was conducted. The passage of time may also result in changes in the subsurface conditions.
217
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTS
Samples from the subsurface study were selected for tests to establish some of the physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests performed are briefly described below.
The natural moisture content and dry density were determined in accordance with ASTM D 2216 on selected samples recovered from the borings. This test determines the moisture content and density, representative of field conditions, at the time the samples were collected. The results are presented on the boring logs, at the appropriate sample depth.
The plasticity of selected clayey soil samples was determined on two soil samples in accordance with ASTM D 422. These results are presented on the boring logs, at the appropriate sample depth.
218
219
Appendix C1
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, ENGEO, Inc., 2010
220
221
GEOTECHNICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
WATER RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
2213 Plaza Drive y Rocklin, CA 95765 y (916) 786-8883 y Fax (888) 279-2698 www.engeo.com
Project No.
8970.000.000
June 7, 2010
Mr. Robert Tito Gonzalez
Stoloski And Gonzalez Inc.
727 Main St
Half Moon Bay CA, 94019
Subject: Half Moon Bay Property
Cabrillo Highway
Assessors Parcel Number 048-133-010
Half Moon Bay, California
LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Dear Mr. Gonzalez:
ENGEO is pleased to present the results of the environmental soil sampling for the subject property (Property) located in Half Moon Bay, California. The purpose of our work was to provide an assessment of the Property for the presence of potential constituents of concern (COCs).
We understand you plan to subdivide the approximately 3-acre Property into four residential lots for single-family home construction. The eastern ¾-acre of the Property fronting Cabrillo Highway is currently used to store numerous construction vehicles and related support equipment. The remainder of the Property exists as open space. An above-ground fuel storage tank (AST) is located on the eastern portion of the Property in the vicinity of the stored vehicles and equipment.
We understand the City of Half Moon Bay has requested an environmental assessment be performed prior to the approval of the subdivision.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of work included the following:
• Collection of 16 discrete soil samples from the portion of the Property used to store vehicles and equipment, recovered from depths of approximately 0 to 6 inches below the surface. • Compositing of the 16 discrete surface samples into four 4-point composite samples by Accutest Laboratories in San Jose, California for the following laboratory analyses: total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil by EPA Test Method 8015M; with silica 222
Stoloski And Gonzalez Inc. 8970.000.000
Half Moon Bay Property June 7, 2010
LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Page 2
gel cleanup by EPA Test Method 3630; and benzene, toluene, ethylbenze, xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Test Method 8015M. The composite samples were be analysed for the LUFT (Leaking Undergrouind Fuel Tank) metals group, by EPA Test Method 200.7/7000/6010B. • Collection of two discrete soil samples from the vicinity of the AST. One sample was recovered from a depth of approximately 0 to 6 inches below the ground surface and a second from a depth of approximately 18 to 24 inches below the ground surface. • The two discrete samples collected in the vicinity of the AST were also submitted to Accutest Laboratories for laboratory analysis of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline and diesel by EPA Test Method 8015M; with silica gel cleanup by EPA Test Method 3630; and benzene, toluene, ethylbenze, xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Test Method 8015M. • Review of the laboratory results, with comparison to applicable Regional Water Quality Control (RWQCB) Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)1
.
• Preparation of this letter report presenting our findings and recommendations.
SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
On May 12, 2010, we collected a total of 18 discrete soil samples from the Property using hand sampling equipment. Approximate sample locations are shown on Figure 2, attached. The 16 samples recovered from the storage area were composited by the laboratory into four 4-point composite samples. The two samples from the AST location would be submitted to the laboratory as discrete samples.
Samples were recovered using pre-cleaned 6-inch-long, 2-inch-diameter stainless steel liners.
The samples were sealed with Teflon and plastic end caps and were preserved in an ice-cooled chest before being transported under documented chain of custody to Accutest Laboratories.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The four composited samples were each analyzed for TPH as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil (with silica gel cleanup), BTEX, and the LUFT metals group. Based on the results of this initial testing we requested Accutest Laboratories to analyze the four samples comprising Composite S-1 (S-1A, ,S-1B, S-1C, and S-1D) individually for TPH as diesel and motor oil. In addition, the two discrete samples taken in the vicinity of the AST were each analyzed for TPH as gasoline and diesel (also with silica gel cleanup) and BTEX. The results of the analyses are summarized in the following table:
1 Screening For Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Interim Final, November 2007 (Table K-1, Direct Exposure – Soil Screening Levels, Residential Exposure Scenario; Noncarcinogens, H.Q.: 1.0). 223
Stoloski And Gonzalez Inc. 8970.000.000
Half Moon Bay Property June 7, 2010
LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Page 3
Sample Reported TPH Diesel
(Screening Level 540 mg/kg)
Reported TPH Motor Oil
(Screening Level 1,800 mg/kg)
S-1A <50 mg/kg 328 mg/kg
S-1B <200 mg/kg 1,020 mg/kg
S-1C <400 mg/kg 3,430 mg/kg
S-1D <960 mg/kg 5,390 mg/kg
S-1(A-D) Composition <200 mg/kg 2,200 mg/kg
S-2(A-D) Composition <10 mg/kg 132 mg/kg
S-3(A-D) Composition <10 mg/kg 120 mg/kg
S-4(A-D) Composition <10 mg/kg 341 mg/kg
S-5 at 6 inches (AST
Location) <50 mg/kg
S-5 at 24 inches (AST
Location) <10 mg/kg
The reported LUFT metal concentrations are either below the applicable ESL, or within the expected range of background concentrations.2 No BTEX constituents or TPH as gasoline were detected above laboratory reporting limits.
The analytical report from Accutest Laboratories is attached.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Soil samples collected within the area identified as S-1 on Figure 2 reported concentration of TPH as motor oil above the RWQCB Environmental Screening Level for residential soil. Based on this, we recommend removal of the significantly affected soil to an anticipated depth of 6 inches across this area (6500 ft2
; ±120 cubic yards). A minimum of four confirmation samples should be collected from the base of the excavation and analyzed for TPH as motor oil. The excavated material can be either analyzed and off hauled to an appropriate disposal facility or encapsulated beneath a pavement section within the planned development.
ENGEO has prepared this report for the exclusive use of our client, Stoloski And Gonzalez Inc. It is recognized and agreed that ENGEO has assumed responsibility only for undertaking the study for the Client. The responsibility for disclosures or reports to a third party and for remedial or mitigative action shall be solely that of the Client.
2 Bradford, G. R., A. C. Chang, A. L. Page, D. Bakhtar, J. A. Frampton, and H. Wright; Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils; Kearney Foundation of Soil Science, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California; March 1996. 224
Stoloski And Gonzalez Inc. 8970.000.000
Half Moon Bay Property June 7, 2010
LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Page 4
We are pleased to be of continued service to you with regard to this project. If you have any further questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Michael L. Turner, CEG Shawn Munger, REAII, CHG
Senior Geologist Principal
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Site Map
Accutest Laboratories, Analytical Test Results
225
(''6
/'6'45
8+%+0+6;/#2
*#.(/110$#;2412'46;
*#.(/110$#;%#.+(140+#
,70'
226
A A
B
C
D
B A B
C D C D
S-2
S-3 S-4
C
D
A
S-1
B
':2.#0#6+10
(''6
/'6'45
#2241:+/#6'.1%#6+101(
%1/215+6'5#/2.'
#2241:+/#6'.1%#6+101(
5#/2.'50'#4#56
#2241:+/#6'.#6'4#.':6'061(+/2#%6'&51+.
5+6'2.#0
*#.(/110$#;2412'46;
*#.(/110$#;%#.+(140+#
,70'
S-4
B
D
A
C
05/26/10
Technical Report for
Engeo, Inc.
Half Moon Bay Property
8970.000.000
Accutest Job Number: C11007
Sampling Date: 05/12/10
Report to:
Engeo, Inc.
6399 San Ignacio Avenue Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95119
[email protected]; [email protected]
ATTN: Shawn Munger
Total number of pages in report:
Certifications: CA (08258CA) DoD/ISO/IEC 17025:2005 (L2242) This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of Accutest Laboratories.
Test results relate only to samples analyzed.
Northern California • 2105 Lundy Ave. • San Jose, CA 95131 • tel: 408-588-0200 • fax: 408-588-0201 • http://www.accutest.com Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.
Client Service contact: Anne Kathain 408-588-0200
Laurie Glantz-Murphy
Laboratory Director
05/26/10
Reissue #1
e-Hardcopy 2.0
Automated Report
54 Accutest Laboratories is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to this document. Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited. 1 of 54
C11007
228
May 26, 2010
Shawn Munger
Engeo, Inc.
6399 San Ignacio Avenue Suite 150
San Jose, CA 95119
Re: Revised Report – Job # C11007
Dear Mr. Munger,
Attached is a reissued report for Accutest Job # C11007, original report dated 5/19/2010.
The TPH Extractable results have been revised for samples C11007-5, -10, -15, -20 and -21. The original TPH data were inadvertently processed using “carbon range” reporting and have now been corrected to “GC fingerprint” reporting.
Also, TPH analyses for samples C11007-1, -2, -3, and -4 have been added per your request.
We apologize for any inconvenience the above issue may have caused you. Please contact us at 408-588-0200 if we can be of further assistance in this matter, or if you have any questions regarding this data report.
Sincerely,
Accutest Laboratories
2 of 54
C11007
229
Table of Contents
-1-
Sections:
Section 1: Sample Summary ................................................................................................... 4 Section 2: Sample Results ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1: C11007-1: S1-A ............................................................................................................ 7
2.2: C11007-2: S1-B ............................................................................................................ 8
2.3: C11007-3: S1-C ............................................................................................................ 9
2.4: C11007-4: S1-D ............................................................................................................ 10
2.5: C11007-5: S1-(A-D)COMP .......................................................................................... 11
2.6: C11007-10: S2-(A-D)COMP ........................................................................................ 15
2.7: C11007-15: S3-(A-D)COMP ........................................................................................ 19
2.8: C11007-20: S4-(A-D)COMP ........................................................................................ 23
2.9: C11007-21: S5@6" ....................................................................................................... 27
2.10: C11007-22: S5@24" ................................................................................................... 30 Section 3: Misc. Forms ............................................................................................................ 33
3.1: Chain of Custody ........................................................................................................... 34 Section 4: GC Volatiles - QC Data Summaries ..................................................................... 36
4.1: Method Blank Summary ................................................................................................ 37
4.2: Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary .............................................................. 39 Section 5: GC Semi-volatiles - QC Data Summaries ............................................................ 41
5.1: Method Blank Summary ................................................................................................ 42
5.2: Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary .............................................................. 44
5.3: Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary ........................................................... 46 Section 6: Metals Analysis - QC Data Summaries ................................................................ 48
6.1: Prep QC MP2385: Cd,Cr,Pb,Ni,Zn ............................................................................... 49 1 2 3 4 5 6
3 of 54
C11007
230
Accutest Laboratories
Sample Summary
Engeo, Inc.
Job No: C11007
Half Moon Bay Property
Project No: 8970.000.000
Sample Collected Matrix Client
Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID
C11007-1 05/12/10 08:40 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S1-A
C11007-2 05/12/10 08:32 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S1-B
C11007-3 05/12/10 08:24 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S1-C
C11007-4 05/12/10 08:17 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S1-D
C11007-5 05/12/10 00:00 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S1-(A-D)COMP C11007-6 05/12/10 08:50 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S2-A
C11007-7 05/12/10 08:58 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S2-B
C11007-8 05/12/10 10:30 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S2-C
C11007-9 05/12/10 10:40 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S2-D
C11007-10 05/12/10 00:00 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S2-(A-D)COMP C11007-11 05/12/10 09:20 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S3-A
C11007-12 05/12/10 09:31 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S3-B
C11007-13 05/12/10 09:25 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S3-C
Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page. 4 of 54
C11007 1
231
Accutest Laboratories
Sample Summary
(continued)
Engeo, Inc.
Job No: C11007
Half Moon Bay Property
Project No: 8970.000.000
Sample Collected Matrix Client
Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID
C11007-14 05/12/10 09:37 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S3-D
C11007-15 05/12/10 00:00 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S3-(A-D)COMP C11007-16 05/12/10 10:06 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S4-A
C11007-17 05/12/10 10:00 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S4-B
C11007-18 05/12/10 09:50 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S4-C
C11007-19 05/12/10 09:54 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S4-D
C11007-20 05/12/10 00:00 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S4-(A-D)COMP C11007-21 05/12/10 10:47 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S5@6"
C11007-22 05/12/10 10:57 SJ 05/12/10 SO Soil S5@24"
Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page. 5 of 54
C11007 1
232
Accutest Laboratories
Sample Results
Report of Analysis
Section 2
6 of 54
C11007 2
233
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-A
Lab Sample ID: C11007-1 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 GG14379.D 5 05/24/10 MT 05/24/10 OP2176 GGG442
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.0 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 50 25 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 328 100 50 mg/kg
TPH (Mineral Spirits) ND 50 25 mg/kg
TPH (Kerosene) ND 50 25 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 67% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 7 of 54
C11007 2
2.1 234
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-B
Lab Sample ID: C11007-2 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 GG14380.D 20 05/24/10 MT 05/24/10 OP2176 GGG442
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.2 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 200 98 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 1020 390 200 mg/kg
TPH (Mineral Spirits) ND 200 98 mg/kg
TPH (Kerosene) ND 200 98 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 59% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 8 of 54
C11007 2
2.2 235
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-C
Lab Sample ID: C11007-3 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 GG14381.D 40 05/24/10 MT 05/24/10 OP2176 GGG442
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.1 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 400 200 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 3430 790 400 mg/kg
TPH (Mineral Spirits) ND 400 200 mg/kg
TPH (Kerosene) ND 400 200 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 66% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 9 of 54
C11007 2
2.3 236
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-D
Lab Sample ID: C11007-4 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 b GG14382.D 50 05/24/10 MT 05/24/10 OP2176 GGG442 Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 5.20 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 960 480 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 5390 1900 960 mg/kg
TPH (Mineral Spirits) ND 960 480 mg/kg
TPH (Kerosene) ND 960 480 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 64% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
(b) Reporting limit increased due to high moisture in the sample. 5 grams prepared instead of the standard 10 grams.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 10 of 54
C11007 2
2.4 237
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-5 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JK12250.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJK483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.00 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
TPH Volatiles
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH-GRO (C6-C10) ND 5.0 2.5 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 88% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 11 of 54
C11007 2
2.5 238
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-5 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8021B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JJ12250.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJJ483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.00 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
Purgeable Aromatics
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
71-43-2 Benzene ND 250 50 ug/kg
108-88-3 Toluene ND 250 50 ug/kg
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 250 50 ug/kg
1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) ND 500 100 ug/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 95% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 12 of 54
C11007 2
2.5 239
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-5 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 GG14427.D 20 05/26/10 JH 05/14/10 OP2135 GGG444
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.1 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 200 99 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 2200 400 200 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 76% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 13 of 54
C11007 2
2.5 240
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S1-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-5 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
Metals Analysis
Analyte Result RL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method Prep Method Cadmium <0.94 0.94 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Chromium 25.1 0.94 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Lead 27.5 0.94 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Nickel 21.5 0.94 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Zinc 179 1.9 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 (1) Instrument QC Batch: MA1217
(2) Prep QC Batch: MP2385
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
RL = Reporting Limit
14 of 54
C11007 2
2.5 241
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S2-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-10 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JK12251.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJK483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.00 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
TPH Volatiles
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH-GRO (C6-C10) ND 5.0 2.5 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 86% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 15 of 54
C11007 2
2.6 242
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S2-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-10 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8021B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JJ12251.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJJ483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.00 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
Purgeable Aromatics
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
71-43-2 Benzene ND 250 50 ug/kg
108-88-3 Toluene ND 250 50 ug/kg
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 250 50 ug/kg
1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) ND 500 100 ug/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 16 of 54
C11007 2
2.6 243
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S2-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-10 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 HH6644.D 1 05/15/10 MT 05/14/10 OP2135 GHH292
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.0 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 10 5.0 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 132 20 10 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 65% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 17 of 54
C11007 2
2.6 244
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S2-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-10 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
Metals Analysis
Analyte Result RL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method Prep Method Cadmium <0.93 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Chromium 14.1 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Lead 29.7 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Nickel 7.4 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Zinc 132 1.9 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 (1) Instrument QC Batch: MA1217
(2) Prep QC Batch: MP2385
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
RL = Reporting Limit
18 of 54
C11007 2
2.6 245
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S3-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-15 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JK12252.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJK483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.08 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
TPH Volatiles
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH-GRO (C6-C10) b 2.89 4.9 2.5 mg/kg J
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 90% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
(b) Atypical pattern. Value due to non-target compound(s).
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 19 of 54
C11007 2
2.7 246
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S3-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-15 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8021B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JJ12252.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJJ483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.08 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
Purgeable Aromatics
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
71-43-2 Benzene ND 250 49 ug/kg
108-88-3 Toluene ND 250 49 ug/kg
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 250 49 ug/kg
1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) ND 490 98 ug/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 95% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 20 of 54
C11007 2
2.7 247
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S3-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-15 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 HH6645.D 1 05/15/10 MT 05/14/10 OP2135 GHH292
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.0 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 10 5.0 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 120 20 10 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 67% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 21 of 54
C11007 2
2.7 248
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S3-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-15 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
Metals Analysis
Analyte Result RL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method Prep Method Cadmium <0.92 0.92 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Chromium 12.4 0.92 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Lead 37.0 0.92 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Nickel 7.1 0.92 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Zinc 153 1.8 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 (1) Instrument QC Batch: MA1217
(2) Prep QC Batch: MP2385
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
RL = Reporting Limit
22 of 54
C11007 2
2.7 249
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S4-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-20 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JK12253.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJK483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.02 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
TPH Volatiles
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH-GRO (C6-C10) ND 5.0 2.5 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 88% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 23 of 54
C11007 2
2.8 250
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S4-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-20 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8021B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JJ12253.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJJ483
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot
Run #1 5.02 g 5.0 ml 100 ul
Run #2
Purgeable Aromatics
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
71-43-2 Benzene ND 250 50 ug/kg
108-88-3 Toluene ND 250 50 ug/kg
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 250 50 ug/kg
1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) ND 500 100 ug/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 93% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 24 of 54
C11007 2
2.8 251
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S4-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-20 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 GG14426.D 5 05/26/10 JH 05/14/10 OP2135 GGG444
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.1 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 50 25 mg/kg
TPH (Motor Oil) 341 99 50 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 86% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 25 of 54
C11007 2
2.8 252
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S4-(A-D)COMP
Lab Sample ID: C11007-20 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
Metals Analysis
Analyte Result RL Units DF Prep Analyzed By Method Prep Method Cadmium <0.93 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Chromium 16.5 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Lead 20.8 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Nickel 9.8 0.93 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 Zinc 122 1.9 mg/kg 1 05/17/10 05/17/10 CT SW846 6010B 1 SW846 3050B 2 (1) Instrument QC Batch: MA1217
(2) Prep QC Batch: MP2385
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
RL = Reporting Limit
26 of 54
C11007 2
2.8 253
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S5@6"
Lab Sample ID: C11007-21 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JK12255.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJK483
Run #2
Initial Weight
Run #1 5.09 g
Run #2
TPH Volatiles
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH-GRO (C6-C10) ND 0.098 0.049 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 91% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 27 of 54
C11007 2
2.9 254
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S5@6"
Lab Sample ID: C11007-21 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8021B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JJ12254.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJJ483
Run #2
Initial Weight
Run #1 5.09 g
Run #2
Purgeable Aromatics
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
71-43-2 Benzene ND 4.9 0.98 ug/kg
108-88-3 Toluene ND 4.9 0.98 ug/kg
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 4.9 0.98 ug/kg
1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) ND 9.8 2.0 ug/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 98% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 28 of 54
C11007 2
2.9 255
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S5@6"
Lab Sample ID: C11007-21 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 HH6646.D 5 05/15/10 MT 05/14/10 OP2135 GHH292
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.0 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 50 25 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 67% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 29 of 54
C11007 2
2.9 256
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S5@24"
Lab Sample ID: C11007-22 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JK12256.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJK483
Run #2
Initial Weight
Run #1 5.15 g
Run #2
TPH Volatiles
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH-GRO (C6-C10) ND 0.098 0.049 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 87% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 30 of 54
C11007 2
2.10 257
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S5@24"
Lab Sample ID: C11007-22 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8021B Percent Solids: n/a a
Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 JJ12256.D 1 05/14/10 JA n/a n/a GJJ483
Run #2
Initial Weight
Run #1 5.15 g
Run #2
Purgeable Aromatics
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
71-43-2 Benzene ND 4.9 0.97 ug/kg
108-88-3 Toluene ND 4.9 0.97 ug/kg
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 4.9 0.97 ug/kg
1330-20-7 Xylenes (total) ND 9.7 1.9 ug/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 99% 60-157%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 31 of 54
C11007 2
2.10 258
Accutest Laboratories
Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1
Client Sample ID: S5@24"
Lab Sample ID: C11007-22 Date Sampled: 05/12/10
Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 05/12/10
Method: SW846 8015B M SW846 3545A Percent Solids: n/a a Project: Half Moon Bay Property
File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 GG14139.D 1 05/15/10 MT 05/14/10 OP2135 GGG436
Run #2
Initial Weight Final Volume
Run #1 10.0 g 1.0 ml
Run #2
TPH Extractable w/ Silica Gel Cleanup
CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q
TPH (Diesel) ND 10 5.0 mg/kg
CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits
630-01-3 Hexacosane 66% 45-140%
(a) All results reported on wet weight basis.
ND = Not detected MDL - Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 32 of 54
C11007 2
2.10 259
Accutest Laboratories
Misc. Forms
Custody Documents and Other Forms
Includes the following where applicable:
• Chain of Custody
Section 3
33 of 54
C11007 3
260
C11007: Chain of Custody