\\SAXDESKTOPNEW\Job Folders\200204 570 Crespi Drive IS\Word\570 Crespi Drive Construction Noise Memo 1‐11‐22.docx See Appendix B for interior noise calculations.
I hope this information is helpful, please call or email me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.
Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
1.j
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Attachment J - Construction Noise Memorandum (4911 : 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)
11.d
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Staff Report (omitting Attachments A, G, I, and K) - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics The science of sound.
Ambient Noise The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.
ASTC Apparent Sound Transmission Class. Similar to STC but includes sound from flanking paths and correct for room reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.
Attenuation The reduction of an acoustic signal.
A‐Weighting A frequency‐response adjustment of a sound level meter that conditions the output signal to approximate human response.
Decibel or dB Fundamental unit of sound, A Bell is defined as the logarithm of the ratio of the sound pressure squared over the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.
DNL See definition of Ldn.
IIC Impact Insulation Class. An integer‐number rating of how well a building floor attenuates impact sounds, such as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.
Frequency The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.
Leq Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.
Lmax The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.
L(n) The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.
Loudness A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.
NIC Noise Isolation Class. A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces. Similar to STC but includes sound from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.
NNIC Normalized Noise Isolation Class. Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.
Noise Unwanted sound.
NRC Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.05. It is a representation of the amount of sound energy absorbed upon striking a particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.
RT60 The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.
Sabin The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin.
SEL Sound Exposure Level. SEL is a rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train pass by, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.
SPC Speech Privacy Class. SPC is a method of rating speech privacy in buildings. It is designed to measure the degree of speech privacy provided by a closed room, indicating the degree to which conversations occurring within are kept private from listeners outside the room.
STC Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used to rate interior partitions, ceilings/floors, doors, windows and exterior wall configurations. The STC rating is typically used to rate the sound transmission of a specific building element when tested in laboratory conditions where flanking paths around the assembly don’t exist. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.
Threshold The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered of Hearing to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.
Threshold Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain
Impulsive Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.
Simple Tone Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches.
1.j
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Attachment J - Construction Noise Memorandum (4911 : 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)
11.d
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Staff Report (omitting Attachments A, G, I, and K) - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project:
Room Description:
Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 79 Leq
Correction Factor, dBA: 5
Noise Source:
Room Length, ft: 10
Room Width, ft: 15
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 10
Transmitting Panel Height, ft: 10
Ceiling Finish:
Ceiling, sf: 150
Wall Finish 1:
Wall Finish 1, sf: 437.5
Wall Finish 2:
Wall Finish 2, sf: 12.5
Floor:
Floor, sf: 150
Misc. Finish:
Misc. Finish, sf:
Transmitting Element 1:
Element 1, sf: 100
Transmitting Element 2:
Element 2, sf:
Transmitting Element 3:
Element 3, sf:
Transmitting Element 4:
Element 4, sf:
Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 52
570 Crespi Drive580 Crespi Commerical Use ‐ Regular Construction Gyp Board
Gyp Board
Diesel EngineWall ‐ Wood with Sheath
Appendix B1:
Inputs
Soft FurnishingsWoodGlass
53 53
60 60 60
66 66 66
74 74 74 75 75 75
72 72
41 41 42 40
37 45
39 37
43 41
38 37 36 37
33 30
‐10
0 1020304050607080
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
1.j
Packet Pg. 863
Attachment: Attachment J - Construction Noise Memorandum (4911 : 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)
11.d
Packet Pg. 441
Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Staff Report (omitting Attachments A, G, I, and K) - Interior Noise Calculation Sheet
Project:
Room Description:
Parallel Exterior level, dBA: 67 Leq
Correction Factor, dBA: 5
Noise Source:
Room Length, ft: 10
Room Width, ft: 15
Room Height, ft: 9
Transmitting Panel Length, ft: 10
Transmitting Panel Height, ft: 10
Ceiling Finish:
Ceiling, sf: 150
Wall Finish 1:
Wall Finish 1, sf: 437.5
Wall Finish 2:
Wall Finish 2, sf: 12.5
Floor:
Floor, sf: 150
Misc. Finish:
Misc. Finish, sf:
Transmitting Element 1:
Element 1, sf: 100
Transmitting Element 2:
Element 2, sf:
Transmitting Element 3:
Element 3, sf:
Transmitting Element 4:
Element 4, sf:
Predicted Interior Noise Level, dBA: 39
570 Crespi Drive580 Crespi Commerical Use ‐ Regular Construction ‐ 10' Wall Gyp BoardGlassWoodSoft FurnishingsWall ‐ Wood with Sheath Appendix B2:
Inputs
Diesel EngineGyp Board
41 41
48 48 48
54 54 54
62 62 62 63 63 63
60 60
29 29 30 28
25 32
26 24
30 28
25 25 24 25
21 18
‐10
0 10203040506070
125 160 200 250 315 400 500 630 800 1K 1.25K 1.6K 2K 2.5K 3.15K 4K dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Exterior Noise Level Predicted Interior Noise Level
1.j
Packet Pg. 864
Attachment: Attachment J - Construction Noise Memorandum (4911 : 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)
11.d
Packet Pg. 442
Attachment: Attachment D - Planning Commission Staff Report (omitting Attachments A, G, I, and K) - Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. DA-21 File No. 2016-004 – General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19, GPA-96-19 Rezoning Text Amendment TA-116-19. Development RZ-194-16 Agreement DA-4-21, Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, TA-116-19 Use Permit UP-76-16. Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, PSD-811-16 Sign Permit S-129-19, Parking Exception PE-183-19 and UP-76-16 Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, filed by Brendan Murphy PE-183-19 for construction of a 43,696-square foot (sf) mixed-use S-129-19 development consisting of three buildings with 19 residential units, SUB-233-16 including three Below Market Rate (BMR) unites and 3,165 sf of Heritage Tree commercial use and amendment of the General Plan and Pacifica Removal Municipal Code to allow stand-alone residential buildings as part of Authorization a mixed-use project in the commercial land use designation and C-2 (Community Commercial_ zoning district and rezoning of the project site from the M-1 (Controlled Manufacturing_ to C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, at 570 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-310) and a portion of the City-owned property at 540 Crespi Drive (APN 022-162-420) property, the location of the Pacifica Community Center.
Recommended CEQA Action: Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Commissioner Hauser stated that she is going recuse herself from this item due to her company’s business relationship with the applicant.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he had Asst. City Manager/Planning Director Wehrmeister, Sr. Civil Engr. Donguines and Asst. City Attorney Sharma joining him, as well as CEQA Consultant Rod Stinson from Raney Planning & Management., then presented the staff report.
Chair Nibbelin asked if the Commissioners had questions and, seeing no one, he moved on to the applicant’s presentation, turning the process over to Dep. Planning Director Murdock.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that there were several people as part of the project team, Brendan Murphy, Emmen Murphy and Stuart Welte, and he asked that one of them clarify if the architect, Mark Romack, was also on the project team. He mentioned the process for their presentation.
Stuart Welte, applicant, stated that Mark Romack was part of the team, and mentioned the members of the team, and consultants who may not be present. He thanked staff for this opportunity after many years of working together. He stated that the project is highly sustainable, energy efficient.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he is only seeing his email screen and he may want to confirm the window that is projecting on the screen. He asked confirmation from Chair Nibbelin that he is also only seeing the email screen.
Chair Nibbelin responded affirmatively.
11.e
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Mr. Welte stated that the project was to allow welcoming and versatile street presence, while accommodating the community lifestyle and allowing them a place that is not too expensive with open space and landscaping and the maximum residents based on various requirements. He explained the details of the project, regarding housing, parking, landscaping, open space and interface between their project and the Community Center. He mentioned that the landscaping would be natural to the coastal area as well as enhance the pollinator plants to rejuvenate the ecosystems, pointing out various specifics. He mentioned that they will have materials that are high quality, with longevity and low maintenance. He stated that they worked to achieve their goals and hoped that they achieved that for the city.
Chair Nibbelin opened the Public Hearing.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock introduced the speakers.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, stated that he appreciated that they put the visuals up. He stated that he has some questions and wasn’t sure if he would get any answers, i.e., cost of the city property, fees, in parity with other municipalities, as well as some concerns.
Margaret Goodale, Pacifica, referred to ten considerations by this project, mentioning some specific concerns such as the marsh issues and wildlife habitat, and asked that they consider not building so much and not accept unmitigated negative declaration to preserve what they can.
Christine Boles, Pacifica, stated she had some concerns regarding the parking issues and commercial/residential percentages, etc., and felt this was a short-term, ill-conceived project. She mentioned some of her thoughts on the rationale for other options.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, stated she won’t repeat what was already about the wetlands, but thought more consideration be given to that back half of the property, mentioning some of her thoughts on that as well as concerns about the size of the project and the parking issues.
Gail Benton-Shoemaker, Pacifica, stated she was speaking as a member of Tree City Pacifica, and mentioned her thoughts on the heritage trees and proposed replacement options.
Bob Boles, Pacifica, congratulated the developer for building high density housing on this site, but did share some of the concerns that previous speakers have mentioned. He referred to the capacity charges to connect to the sewer system, and expressed his thoughts on the specifics for this project.
Chair Nibbelin asked if the applicant had reserved 2.5 minutes to respond to questions.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Chair Nibbelin asked the applicant if he wishes to address any matters raised during public comment.
Mr. Welte stated that he was not able to share his screen.
Chair Nibbelin asked Dep. Planning Director Murdock if he could do that.
11.e
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that it was enabled.
Mr. Welte thanked the community for participating in the meeting. He stated that, when they began the project, they looked at the existing uses in the area and made a commitment to show they were serious about providing a large portion of the site to remain open and half the site is that way. He stated that there was an open area on the Community Center site and a complimentary and balanced portion on their site which will allow the open space area where it operates now, and it was analyzed through CEQA experts. They identified the area for wetlands and they were proposing to enlarge the area to bring the Arroyo willows down the side of the property, as well as the rear perimeter to provide the ability for them to grow and offer an extended land of habitat. He stated that they tried to find the right balance as housing is needed and three townhouse units and one flat are offered as affordable housing units as well as the almost $300,000 of extra payment to that program. He felt they did a lot of work and tried to provide affordable housing and open space area.
Chair Nibbelin reminded him that his time was up.
Mr. Welte asked that he mention one more comment regarding the tree mitigation as the landscape plan shows an additional 17 trees and 60 other plants.
Chair Nibbelin closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Domurat shared a lot of concerns he heard from the community. He acknowledged that they need developed housing. He stated that those who understand the geology and wetlands will understand that the whole area has been significantly degraded over 70-80 years. He thought it would be nice to see the area of the half property that maybe, instead of a 3-1 mitigation on trees, they work together with state and city to enhance the wetlands to make it more productive as they are limited in space from what Laguna Salada used to be. He thought, instead of looking at a lot of heritage trees, they look to enhance what is left in terms of the seasonal wetlands that would be in that area. He felt there needed to be more discussion on parking, hoping other Commissioners will raise that issue, and he is still trying to look at how the parking will work. He was a big proponent of renewables and he didn’t see any potential for any kind of solar enhancements for this project or what is in the garages of all the condo units but an enhancement to provide two 20 outlets near the doors so those who have electrical vehicles would have the opportunity to hook up to that, and thought these could make it more attractive. He asked, when they go from M-1 to C-2, does the C-2 designation allow the city to control what type of commercial uses are available. He stated that, if he was living on top of the commercial use, he would not be living on top of a nightclub, so he was not sure if it was his lack of knowledge about what would be allowable, but you wouldn’t want a family living on top of a gun shop. He asked that they clarify that C-2 designation.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thanked him for those thoughtful comments. Regarding the rezoning to a C-2 zoning district, he stated that there are allowable uses set forth in the Municipal Code already in the form of permitted uses and conditional uses. He stated that permitted uses are land uses that Council has already determined are acceptable for that particular zoning district which includes conventional retail, personal and business service establishments including financial institutions, offices, certain types of restaurants, hospitals and clinics. Certain conditional uses require Planning Commission approval on a use permit prior to those being
11.e
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
allowed in a C-2 zoned area, such as social halls, clubs, theaters and nightclubs, as well as others such as vehicle and boat sales, pet care, etc. He stated that Council has determined where to draw that line in terms of land uses, and it is drawn in the C-2 zoning standards. Regarding his energy efficiency comments, he recalls seeing an official comment that these buildings will need to have solar panels installed and not just solar ready. He thought the architect could speak further as it is beyond his area of expertise. He understood that the garages would need to be EV charger ready and the wiring would be there, whether the charger would be installed would ultimately be up to the unit owner. He stated that the city’s zoning standards for the commercial component is to have certain electrical vehicle charging requirements as well.
Chair Nibbelin thanked him, adding that he didn’t know if the applicant wanted to comment on the specific concerns raised by Commissioner Domurat.
Mr. Welte stated that there was a roof plan which show proposed arrays and there is a minimum of six and maximum of 15 panels per roof area depending on which roof they are looking at, so there are a considerable number of solar panels being proposed for the project. He stated that the garages would be equipped with at least one charger per garage. He stated that the house panels with meters would also be sized ahead of time to accommodate battery storage if the owner chose to install battery storage.
Commissioner Godwin stated that, with the price of oil going up, electric cars are going to be quite popular in the near future. He then asked if it was correct that he heard the public comments that the $272,000 contribution toward the low-income housing fund was in addition to the city property purchase cost or is it the total amount paid for the city property.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t want to delve too deeply into the purchase and sale agreement as it isn’t subject to Planning Commission’s review, but there is a separate price that they city has negotiated for purchase of the land. The amount shown of $272,000 in the development agreement is separate from the purchase price for the city-owned land and is an additional amount of money on top of the three below market rate units that the city’s ordinance requires and would be constructed with this project and are not the same amount of money and the city is not selling its portion of its land for $272,000 as a separate amount payable for affordable housing purposes.
Commissioner Godwin thought that was important to clarify. He also asked what the sewer connection median unit cost is, as there was a discussion that it was possibly inadequate as they decide to let the developer use the current regulations versus future regulations.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he didn’t have the current proposed rates in front of him, but the development agreement in Section 4.1 in packet page 176 does address development impact fees. He stated that the question of fees in relationship to development agreements is very fact specific, legal specific and timing specific but pursuant to the terms of this particular proposed development agreement, the impact fees that are in place as of the effective date can be imposed on the project at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance. He stated that, if the public commenter is talking about an existing sewer connection fee, which is a fee the city already has, the city would be able to impose the sewer connection fee and the rate of the fee would be the rate that is in effect at the time of building permit issuance. He stated that it ultimately depends on the timing and whether the Council updates the sewer fee impact or connection fees. He stated that the potential exists for the city to impose the increased fee.
11.e
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Commissioner Godwin thanked him for the information as he thought that was important to mention.
Chair Nibbelin asked if Asst. City Attorney Sharma had anything to add to that.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma wanted to confirm that Dep. Planning Director Murdock’s interpretation of the development agreement language was correct that the city would be able to impose the sewer connection fees should they be increased by the time the applicant pulls a building permit.
Vice Chair Berman stated she had several questions but would wait on some of them until all the Commissioners have spoken. She stated that her initial question for staff was an overarching question regarding the parking improvements at the front of the Community Center. She stated that there wasn’t a lot of details about those improvements in the packet and she was trying to understand that the new development they are considering depends on those parking improvements. She asked how much of those improvements should they be reviewing and considering, as she thought it was important for what they are considering at this time. She thought that, legally, the Community Center property’s parking count is going to change as she knows they are not considering changing to the Community Center functioning itself, and she asked how much of that do they need to be considering at this time.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought those were great questions that warrant some discussion as to the proposed parking and circulation improvements. He clarified that, when staff analyzed the proposed development project, they did not include any of the parking spaces proposed to be constructed on the Community Center property. He stated that, if they look at the summary in the table at the beginning of the staff report and the analysis of the parking exception, they have not included those spaces and identified that the project would be short five off street parking spaces from its relevant number of required parking spaces. He stated that there are some additional nuances in terms of covered parking, etc., that make it not exactly “apples to apples” comparison.
He stated that, in simple terms, the project would be short five spaces and it is short of Municipal Code requirements but the Commission may recall other mixed use projects that were approved in the past and quite often the parking exceptions requested for those projects are considerably higher and this developer has made an earnest effort to include as much onsite parking as they feel they can reasonably do. He then addressed the Community Center improvements, i.e., the off-street parking spaces proposed to be constructed pursuant to the development agreement, stating that the city isn’t generally strict in terms of who uses them and doesn’t overly regulate them. They will be parking spaces attributable to the Community Center property and by their construction, would increase the number of off-street parking spaces for the Community Center.
He referred to a variety of parking challenges on properties throughout the city, and sometimes people park on someone else’s property, and utilize it in a way not intended. He didn’t know if there was a good mechanism in place to prevent that, given the proximity and linkage to the driveway. He stated that it was possible there could be other parking and it could happen in both directions and he didn’t think they should only assume that the project may affect the Community Center, as the Community Center and special events held there could spill over into the private property. He thought it was a reality to be mindful of, and regarding the driveway proposed at the front of the Community Center, that was intended as a public benefit to improve the circulation and operation of the Community Center for the city’s and public’s benefit. He stated that it wasn’t intended to be an access driveway, and people could use it, but it wouldn’t be the most
11.e
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
convenient way to enter the site as the site has its own dedicated entry driveway at the east end of the site closest to 580 Crespi, a one-way entry drive and traffic would exit through the driveway on the eastern boundary of the Community Center and that use by the developer would be subject to a lease with the city in an annual payment with an escalation factor. He stated that the city would be compensated for the lease of its property. He referred to one commenter stating it was unusual, and he agreed it was uncommon but not unprecedented. He stated that, in many cases, shared driveways have a lot of benefits in terms of preserving on street parking, minimizing the number of places where vehicles are entering and existing from the roadway and potentially minimizing the number of driveways that pedestrians have to navigate safely. He stated that they think in this case, it does integrate well and makes sense to this project, and the city would be compensated for the project’s use of that space.
Vice Chair Berman referred to the parking, asking if she is understanding correctly that effectively the parking on the new development is going to be comingling with the parking demand on the Community Center site and the idea is that there will be overflow parking in the Community Center and everyone will park wherever they park.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he is recognizing the reality that someone coming in to pick up an item from one of the commercial uses might find it more convenient to park in one of the Community Center spaces, an existing space or one of the proposed spaces. He stated that they have not formally analyzed that arrangement and none of the Community Center spaces that are proposed or existing have been counted toward the project’s off street parking requirements.
He stated that they have taken it that the project is not provided all the off street parking and proposed approval of a parking exception to account for that, not just the number of spaces by covered parking as another example of the parking exception. He stated that the reality as well as the permitting has been outlined in the staff report.
Vice Chair Berman concluded that what is outlined in the staff report doesn’t tally up the new parking stalls that would be in front of the Community Center.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively, and if that were to be done, the project would be overparked. They have not done that analysis and he thinks they don’t want to so designate those spaces as belonging to the development because that hasn’t been negotiated and the city has not included a mechanism to be compensated for that ongoing use and maintenance in the development agreement.
Vice Chair Berman stated that she wanted to give others a chance to speak.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock wanted to clarify another point. He did not think that there is anything in the development agreement that would prevent the city from managing those proposed spaces to be constructed in the manner that it manages the other spaces that the city owns on the Community Center property. He stated that, should the city want to become more or less restrictive in its use, that would be the city’s prerogative for those spaces.
Vice Chair Berman asked if there was any intent to potentially include more definition regarding the parking between the two properties, such as a covenant agreement that focuses on this.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought the nature of such an agreement would depend on the nature of what she is describing. He stated that, if it was to seek exclusion of development traffic,
11.e
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
perhaps that is something that could be negotiated, adding that enforcement of parking is always an ongoing challenge and it would have costs associated with enforcement and oversight of that.
He did not think that was currently part of the agreement.
Vice Chair Berman stated that the only concern is that the development they are considering, considering that they are looking at a parking exception and not considering the extra lot that will be built in front of the community center, but if they ultimately know that the development is going to overflow into that Community Center, and, if in the future, those parking stalls are not available to the development, she questioned where they go from there.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that it feels like they are coming into this at a late stage in a lengthy and larger negotiation with the city. He felt that some of the items were out of the purview of the Commission but part and parcel to the whole approval, such as the sale of the land, improvements of the Community Center frontage and the lease agreement for the driveway and he didn’t see any of those as being part of the Commission’s purview, but they seem to be very central to the whole negotiation. Regarding the parking being addressed, he felt it was as a tradeoff where you can either have parking or preserve the wetlands that everyone’s talking about. He didn’t think it seemed that you can have both. He asked staff if there was a parking study available for the existing Community Center parking, adding that he has been there a few times and has never noticed it to be an extremely impacted lot. He understood that it is not considered as part of the parking for this development but it seems that the way it has been written, they are effectively going to become one parking lot connected in the middle. He asked if there is anything to show if it is a currently impacted parking lot and you are going to have extra parking coming into the development from the Community Center or vice versa. He then referred to a note on the rezoning for commercial use to allow residential units to be located in locations other than the same building which is a revision to the General Plan, asking if that is a one off that applies only to this one development or it is a precedent that now applies to any unit under that zoning in future developments.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, as far as the negotiations, he is correct that this process has been the subject of negotiations for several years between the city and the developer.
Given that the negotiations involve the city’s real property interest, they were subjected to the delegated negotiation authority by Council to staff and confirmation of the terms and a tentative agreement with Council, and the Council has been involved and made certain steps toward this agreement, and it is not final. He stated that Council has supported the various aspects that are contained in the proposed development agreement. He stated that, related to the Community Center, he was not aware of a parking study but his experience matches Commissioner Ferguson that rarely is the Community Center parking lot full, at least on the inland side. Regarding whether parking will spill over one way or the other, he thought that was speculative. He thought the possibility exits if users of both properties may attempt to utilize parking spaces on the other.
He stated that, as the parking exception is drafted, it takes that head on and indicates that this property is facing practical difficulties and hardship in providing all the parking. He stated that avoiding encroachment on the southern half of the site was the project objective. He stated that lots of parking could be provided there, but at a cost to the environment and project design and that was not currently proposed. He stated that, ultimately, it was up to the Commission to determine whether or not they feel a practical hardship and difficulty exists, such that the project has provided the parking to the extent that it reasonably can. He thought he had another question but he can’t recall it.
11.e
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Commissioner Ferguson stated the last question was on the zoning, as to whether it applies only to this site or citywide.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, as proposed, the zoning text amendment to the C-2 zoning district would apply to all C-2 zoned properties in the city. He stated that, as indicated in the staff report, there are relatively few as the vast proportion of the city’s commercial zoned areas are zoned C-1, adding that it would apply to C-2 zoned areas in various zoned O (Professional Office) which follow the C-2 allowable uses, but it is important to note that, if approved, this would create a conditional use, which means no project in the city would be able just undertake this new form of mixed use development and it would require approval of the use permit just as recommended to be approved at this time for this project. He stated that it would not create any new development that would not come back for a public hearing.
Commissioner Leal stated he had several questions, and first asked clarification around the 17 parking places. On looking at the map, he thought there were about ten in the northern end of the Community Center and seven on the east end, adjacent to the development, and he asked if those remain on city-owned land after the development agreement goes into play.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Leal stated that this is a high pedestrian area, with people walking to the beach, and with reference to curb cuts, he didn’t see any new curb cuts along Crespi, and the western end of the Community Center driveway would be leveraging the existing parking curb cut there. He thought the eastern end of the Community Center and the exit pathway of the development would be leveraging the existing curb cut and driveway to the back of the Community Center parking and in roughly the same location, i.e., the most eastern entry for the development would be leveraged in existing curb cut from the entire development that was on the property before it was demolished in 2016. He asked if that is correct regarding the curb cuts along this pathway.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought he was generally correct that the net number of curb cuts would remain the same. He stated that it is hard to say exactly where, but his impression was that the new entry driveway to this project would actually relocate the existing curb cut from the prior 570 Crespi single family residence eastward and may narrow that as compared to its current configuration. He stated that it may actually be a net positive in terms of on street parking but would not introduce new curb cuts that would reduce the availability of on street parking which is highly utilized in this area.
Commissioner Leal referred to the undeveloped area in the back which will be fenced off and will be private land and the tenants and owners of the property won’t be able to use that for their pleasure and cordoned off for very little use if any.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that there was no proposed active use as part of the project and, whether it will be physically fenced off was nothing he was aware of, but he thought the developer could speak to that intention. He thought access may be practically difficult, given the density of some of the tree covered as proposed to be parking. He suggested that the applicant could probably clarify further.
Chair Nibbelin asked if the applicant was available.
11.e
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Mr. Welte stated that there is a sheet that shows the proposed fencing back there. He stated that there was a little walkway and a short fence and basically stainless steel cables and iron bars. He stated that it is an attractive fence designed to alert people to the idea that there should be people entering that area but it is not something that looks like a security fence, but meant to be attractive and create an overlook. He stated that there will be some signage to describe what is going on in terms of plantings and types of habitat that are being preserved in that open space area. He reiterated that it is a bit of an overlook area. He stated that, if desired, he could find the sheet number.
Commissioner Leal stated that it was a large packet and he would appreciate if he could find the page.
Mr. Welte understood, as there are a lot of sheets. He stated that there is a landscape sheet that shows all the landscaping proposed in front of the Community Center if anyone is interested in that. He stated that it is Sheet A1.14, and if requested, he could show it on the screen, but it was a cantilevered border wall walkway with a 42-inch steel bar and cable railing with a wood top.
Commissioner Godwin stated that in an earlier project, they specified parking stackers to increase the parking capacity when there was an inadequate number of parking spaces. He asked if that was considered for this project, and if not, why not.
Mr. Welte stated that they did consider parking stackers. He stated that parking stackers have a bit of a limit in terms of height, typically 12 feet, and in the project, they are also trying to achieve a lower level of massing, and he pointed out, from their street façade, they are trying to make sure that no part of the development looks too monolithic and has that variegated massing.
He stated that the height a car stacker typically requires is not available on this site. He stated that, of someone wanted to employ an exterior parking stacker, that could be explored, but it was not typically done because of the mechanisms, and in a marine environment, they wonder how that would hold up. He reiterated that they did consider that, as well as reduced size parking, but they didn’t go there as everything is standard size. He referred to his mentioning alternative fuel stations, and he stated that they have onsite electric charging stations for the visitors/guests commercial use, etc.
Vice Chair Berman asked Chair Nibbelin if he had any questions before she goes back for the second time.
Chair Nibbelin stated that he did not as the matters were being very well covered.
Vice Chair Berman stated her next questions are probably for staff. Regarding public utility easement, she noticed a PUE at the front of the site and she wondered if the city or Public Works typically allows deck overhangs to encroach in the PUE.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock asked Sr. Civil Engr. Donguines if he would like to speak about public utility easements.
Sr. Civil Engr. Donguines didn’t believe they would allow the overhang, as it depends on what kind of PUE it is and if it will be accessible if they need to get in there.
Vice Chair Berman stated that she saw it was in one of the architectural sheets.
11.e
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Mr. Welte stated that one place where the PUE shows up is on the TM0, the civil engineering drawings, and the project isn’t proposing to overhang any PUE.
Vice Chair Berman stated that she wasn’t sure if the deck was shown on the tentative map, but it sounds like there is confirmation from the applicant that no part of the building will overhang or encroach in the PUE.
Mr. Welte responded affirmatively.
Vice Chair Berman noticed a proposed overflow pipe at the south of the site that connects from the wetlands to a 24-inch storm drain which is not on the subject property but on the property of a single-family home. She didn’t see an existing PUE for that storm drain line. She assumes there is but is not shown because it is on a separate parcel. She wanted confirmation that there is a PUE for that storm drain line.
Sr. Civil Engr. Donguines stated that the city does have a PUE running through there and the city has a storm drain easement along those properties that goes all the way towards Highway 1.
Vice Chair Berman stated that part of the improvement to install that 12-inch pipe connection would have to be improvements on the single-family home’s property, and she asked if there were any discussions with that property owner. She referred to packet page 149 and tentative map page 30 or TM3. She stated that there is a 12-inch HDPE storm drain line that serves as an overflow from the wetland and connects to the storm drain line which is in a single-family home property.
Chair Nibbelin thought that was something Mr. Welte would need to speak to.
Mr. Welte stated that the civil engineer isn’t present at this meeting and he can’t speak in great detail to that. He stated that he would find it unusual that the civil engineer would propose an improvement on someone else’s property. He stated that, if she is saying that it happens to coincide with an outlet from an existing site, he would say that the outlet from the existing site may not be legal. He thought it was unusual for one site to drain onto another as that would not be their intention as everything they do with the C.3 and C.6 requirements don’t allow it. He stated that you retain water on site and at certain intervals you let it meter out at a very slow rate through proper channels. He didn’t think that is occurring but they will double check with the civil engineer.
Vice Chair Berman stated that response leads her to another question. She asked if this overflow that is shown connecting to the storm drain line is required by the MND. She stated that she looks at the grading of the site and the existing wetland overland release is likely towards Crespi and now there will be a large development between the wetland and Crespi and, in a 100+ yearstorm, if the capacity of the wetland that is now being condensed a little bit and if there is a need for an overflow somewhere, she asked where it needs to go, connect to the storm drain line which needs to be build in someone else’s property or is it going to overflow into the Community Center property which she agrees typically we can’t let a property service drain to another property without some form of easement or negotiations associated with it. She stated that she is trying to piece it altogether.
11.e
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Mr. Welte stated that the TM3 sheet she mentioned does show some indication of tie-ins. He stated that none of them are shown on someone else’s property that he can see and there are notes that say “connect to the existing 24 storm drain proceed requirements per city equalization project plan”, etc., and the only reason they would be showing this is to show that they are tying in on their site but that pipe, by city regulations, needs to connect into the city system, and the city system currently has the pipe in the vicinity of where it is shown. He stated that it is just a matter of where the existing city utilities are and the fact that it is required to tie into them. He stated that the graphics of that are starting to look like you think there is work being done on someone else’s property. He stated that would be something that would be worked out with city Engineering and city Public Works as to the tie in to the existing city utilities.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought a large part of Vice Chair Berman’s concern is if there is a city easement for storm drainage and is there an existing pipe and does the city have the ability to allow a connection from the project to that location, and a second part of her concern, as he is hearing it, is if there needs to be some condition of approval that requires some minimum amount of notification and coordination with the property owner. He stated that, it appeared to him, the easement is located on one of the single family residential properties; however, that property is burdened with that easement and needs to fulfill its obligation to allow city storm drainage in that location. He wasn’t fully understanding the concern is with that functional connection but he understands there is potential concern that the homeowner may be inconvenienced and need the appropriate amount of coordination should that improvement be made, even if consistent with the burden on the property that they purchased already.
Vice Chair Berman agreed that it was the coordination with the property owner. She understands and fully agrees that the property is already burdened with the easement, but they can’t be surprised by seeing construction in their backyard. She would like to propose a condition of approval, asking Dep. Planning Director Murdock if he can help her word it, to the effect that the developer needs to coordinate with that property owner.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock agreed.
Vice Chair Berman referred to Commissioner Leal’s concerns about the amount of community members who walk up and down the sidewalk, adding that she is one of them, and stated that, regarding the freestanding sign at the east of the driveway on packet page 105, she wanted to make sure that the sign is located somewhere outside of the site triangle between the car exiting the driveway and a pedestrian walking across the sidewalk. She referred to a dropping site distance for a vehicle that is going to go an inch over the sidewalk trying to get onto Crespi and stated that they should make sure that a pedestrian walking by isn’t in a blind spot behind that sign.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock understood her point, and he was checking to see if that specific issue has already been evaluated. He stated that it is quite comment for the traffic impact analyses for projects such as this to include a relevant site distance triangle. He stated that it would take several minutes for him to find that information or the Commission could consider a condition of approval to simply reinforce and ensure that review and precise placement occurs if the project is approved.
Sr. Civil Eng. Donguines stated that it is an entrance and not an exit, so there probably would not be any site distance on the eastern driveway.
11.e
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Vice Chair Berman asked if it was just an entrance and not both> Dep. Planning Director Murdock agreed that it is a one-way entrance from Crespi Drive. He thought the potential exists for someone to go the wrong way as people do make those kinds of mistakes. He stated that it may be a good idea to do that level of review as a precaution but not immediately necessary given the design function of that driveway.
Vice Chair Berman stated that it alleviates her concern if the driveway is intended to be an entrance only. She then referred to the usable open space, and stated that this has been a topic that has been required on multiple developments that the Commission has reviewed and she was sure they have reviewed the definition of usable open space, but she hoped staff can explain it again. She stated that a lot of the landscaping for this development is nice landscaping but behind a curve and somewhere that the community is going to go and hang out in the middle the shrubs in a parking island. She appreciated that he deck space is usable open space but she wondered what landscaping is truly useable.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought it was important to start with the definition as she indicated, stating that usable open space is defined in Section 9-4.260.2 of the Municipal Code and says “It shall mean common or private outdoor living, recreation, domestic use or landscaping. Such area may be on the ground or on a roof, porch, deck, court or balcony. Off street parking areas or driveways and/or exit corridors shall not be included as useable open space. Any separate area to qualify under this definition shall be a minimum of 4 feet by 10 feet.
Usable open space shall not have a scope of more than 10%..” Vice Chair Berman stated that it doesn’t necessarily preclude the landscaping behind the curb, but the fact that there is a certain minimum slope implies to her that the best usable open space is acceptable by people. She stated she will think on that for a little bit, but if any other Commissioner have similar thoughts, she was interested to hear them.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he had a thought on the same topic, and thought Commissioner Leal alluded to it also. He envisioned something similar to the signage in the frontage that is used around the Sharp Park natural wetland, when entering from Fairway Park or from the levee, which takes advantage of that natural wetland and Arroyo instead of fencing it off to anyone but making it serve as usable open space, but not something that would be heavily trafficked for environmental reason but just calls attention to it and activates that space a little bit.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock asked him to remind him where the area is in question.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that the transition between the hardscape and the undeveloped space south of the project.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that they would have to look more specifically as there are some grade differentials there and there is some proposed decking to help level off that area and to render it safe for usable open space. He wasn’t familiar with whether that space would meet the 10% grade requirement as currently designed, and it is probably something that will require some further analysis since he is looking to formalize and count it towards usable open space.
11.e
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Chair Nibbelin asked if there are any other questions or information they want to elicit as it concerns this matter. He then thought it might be the appropriate time to work their way through the membership and see where they are with respect to the project and figure out if they have a consensus building around any particular direction or have a need for other information.
Commissioner Domurat stated that, as mentioned, they certainly need the development and he likes the way it looks and thought there may be some additional things they can consider with the southern portion of the property, maybe a way to enhance the wetland, some additional considerations to the area between the Community Center parking lot and the empty area of an observational boardwalk along there that can be used as part of the open space observation of the wetland and people can make use of it that way. He thought there were still some challenges of both the commercial parking available and the agreements between the city and developer that they are not considering. He also uses that area heavily and he can see some concerns about traffic patterns, etc., but overall, he thinks it a great place for this kind of development.
Commissioner Leal stated he is generally in favor of this project as it is an infill project, and the land was previously developed and was demolished several years ago. He stated that it provides much needed housing at a time when it continues to be in a region that needs housing and it provides some below market housing, as well as commercial space in an area that would great for it right along the street frontage. So this project has a lot of things going for it. Again, he is in favor of the project and, while it is not perfect, he thinks it has enough good things going for it and he would be comfortable voting in favor of it at this time. They have given them all the information, as well as comments from the public. He was stuck on the parking and changes to the Community Center, and he asked staff if it was in the Commission’s purview to add a condition of approval which in terms of for any of those parking places to be electric vehicle (EV) parking, as he didn’t think they had any EV parking at the Community Center now and he thought that would be a great addition. He stated that, if talking about improvements to parking, that would be a great improvement and again asked staff if it was within their purview to add that as a condition of approval for the parking improvements in the Community Center.
Dep. Planning Murdock thought they would need to talk more about why the project would have an impact that requires electric vehicle parking to be installed. If it were to be a condition of approval, he thought another alternative is to consider in their recommendation to the Council on the development agreement that the public benefits warrant installation of an electrical vehicle charging station for whatever number. He stated that there are some practical complexities with installing those in terms of finding the available power source, ensuring that the capacity is sufficient, trenching, repaving the area that is trenched to install that, maintenance, obligations, who is paying for the electricity, etc. He stated that they are a bit complex even though they are small improvements. He stated that, to whatever extent there is interest among the Commission, probably packaging that is a recommendation in relation to the public benefits of the development agreement which would be his recommendation to address that.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was going to address what Commissioner Leal and Dep.
Planning Director Murdock were talking about, as he feels that the negotiations have already been had between the city and the developer as to those improvements, adding those parking spaces and it was something they wanted for their improvements and he feels a little uncomfortable adding after the fact to negotiations that already happened between the two parties. He stated that, as part of a good faith negotiation, it is something that has been worked out already and he
11.e
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
thought there could be substantial costs to adding those to the Community Center, assuming the power would come from the Community Center.
Chair Nibbelin thought, as long as they are talking with them, he asked Commissioner Ferguson to share his perspective as to where they are at this point.
Commissioner Ferguson agreed, adding that he has been grappling with this all day. He stated that his major thought was the number and scope of deviations and the title they were receiving was daunting, and he kept coming back to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements and the scale of the task, stating that they would have to have 100 of these and they would have to figure out where to place them in order to meet the needs over the next several years, and it was drops in the bucket, although it seems like a substantial project as this is the second largest in the last seven years. But given all that, and it checks most of the boxes of what Pacifica is trying to do from a development standpoint, he would definitely be in favor of voting for it at this time.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he would like to comment on the discussion of the development agreement, and wanted to be sure the Commission understands where that discussion could occur if there is interest among the Commission. He understood Commissioner Ferguson’s concerns about the negotiations, etc., but it is a requirement of the Municipal Code for the Commission to make a recommendation on the six criteria for approval of a development agreement. He stated that they are covered on packet pages 32 through 34, and he wanted to draw their attention to one of the criteria for approval, the ability for an applicant to address public facility needs and financing obligations, and while the Commission wouldn’t have the ability to require that as part of the development agreement, the Commission is making a recommendation on the development agreement and the totality of its provisions to Council in relation to those criteria for approval. He thought there was room for that discussion to occur if the majority of the Commission was interested. He did understand Commissioner Ferguson’s concerns as well as others, and he thought a lot of negotiation has gone into this which indicates that it is not a done deal and the Commission’s role in this case is to advise and make a recommendation.
Commissioner Godwin stated that they need the lower cost housing and this looks like a good site for it, and overall, he was in favor of the project. He thought there were a couple of things they need to add. He likes Commissioner Domurat’s boardwalk idea of making the wetland space a little more usable for humans. He likes the idea of adding an electric car charger or two and they vary much in cost from pretty inexpensive ones to quite expensive ones and he thinks they need to constrain that for the Community Center parking as part of the project. He likes the idea of parking stackers to solve the parking problem. He stated that, if those three things were included, he could vote for it at this time, but without all of those, he would still have questions.
Vice Chair Berman stated that, based on all her questions, she was in favor of this project. She felt it was a good infill housing location. She felt it was a big packet and she had a lot of questions which reminds her that she thinks she read something in the packet that did mention informational signs at the observation deck and that made her happy and is in line with what was suggested by Commissioner Ferguson. She thought the observation deck is a more usable area of open space than landscaping throughout the parking lot. She was trying to keep notes of some of the things they want to potentially add to the project or consider requesting, but one that has not been addressed but she was in favor of was the heritage tree replacement requirement. She stated that one of the community members mentioned that this could be a good opportunity to
11.e
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
implement the 3:1 ratio that they recently implemented on other projects. She was in favor of the 3:1 tree replacement ratio for the heritage trees that will be removed. She mentioned to staff that they might want to consider that, adding that she wasn’t sure what standard box tree size is or what they have consistently implemented on other projects, but she thought it would be nice to keep that consistent. She stated that staff presented the development agreement revision to Section 5.1.1, but they also talked about adding a condition of approval for the developer to coordinate with the single-family homeowner where the storm drain connection will be made.
She stated that parking is the only other thing that she is still fuzzy on, and it was awkward to her that, although the numbers of the staff report don’t tally up the parking that will eventually be proposed at the Community Center, everyone seems to be in agreement that those parking stalls or overflow parking in the Community Center will be needed. She agreed that usually the parking lot for the Community Center is oversized and is rarely full, but she thought it was awkward to be dependent on something that isn’t really defined in what they are reviewing.
Chair Nibbelin stated that he shares the views of just about what everyone has said. He thought Commissioner Leal’s comments are the closest to his and he would be prepared to move forward with the project this evening. He had a similar reaction to Commissioner Ferguson’s in the sense that there were a significant number of things that need to happen for this project to move forward by way of recommendations with respect to legislative actions and to the extent of discretionary things that they would typically be asked to pass on. He stated that a development of an infill nature and where they are talking about is a complex matter. He stated that it was very clear to him that staff worked very hard and at length with the developer to navigate this project to a place where it is viable. He thinks the needs addressed are significant needs for housing, for below market rate housing and the significant contribution to affordable housing fund. He referred to the benefits that will flow through the development agreement, and stated that he had a couple of questions to clarify some things. He thought Commissioner Godwin had a commendable idea regarding the possibility of some form of observation area, and he asked if that was something that could be contemplated through a recommendation to Council by way of a public benefit in a development agreement and if it could be treated similarly to how they talked about the possibility of electric vehicle chargers.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought so. He stated that, unlike the typical response they get from staff to find a nexus to the impact to require something, effectively all options are on the table with respect to a development agreement. He stated that it was rare that the city negotiates a development agreement and it is only the second he is aware of in recent years. He stated that the Commission has some latitude and he would ask that they ground it in the six criteria so they can find some relationship to those criteria in the Planning Commission’s role. He thought it would be appropriate to recommend that to Council, and they may accept or reject the recommendation or direct further negotiations to accomplish some or all of the Commission’s recommendations in that regard.
Chair Nibbelin stated he would be in favor of figuring out how to link that to the criteria for the development agreement as they walk through the electric car charger idea. He stated that, regarding the parking stackers, it might require quite a bit more analysis than would allow them to proceed this evening. He would be in favor of a 3:1 tree replacement ratio, but he wanted to clarify that he thought he heard that the number of trees being proposed would be in excess of that ratio. He asked if staff’s view of that 3:1 ratio being considered to impose was being met.
11.e
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Dep. Planning Director Murdock thought it was the case, and he was trying to track the specific figures. He thought it was upwards of 27 additional Arroyo willows proposed to be planted along the side and rear of the property, and perhaps as many as 13 other trees of various species, and he thought, given that the number seems to satisfy that 3:1 ratio or exceed the 3:1 ratio and there was some concern about the particular species, there has been a biologist’s recommendation that the Arroyo willows would be an appropriate planting and would compliment the existing biology of the project area. He stated that it was possible that staff could evaluate other species that may also be compatible and larger sizes it that is part of the concern.
Chair Nibbelin stated that his question was prompted by Vice Chair Berman’s perspective and he will ask her to weigh in if she has anything to add.
Vice Chair Berman stated that she will feel more comfortable if they at least made some commitment to a certain amount of trees that need to be planted, whether 3-1 or 27 willows planned already, and she understands that, when projects are in the planning phase, there isn’t as much consideration to cost, but as the project gets closer to construction, there are often valued engineering and the size or the amount of trees being planted will be on the docket to be removed so she wanted to make sure that the commitment where the minimum amount of trees doesn’t get removed from the project.
Chair Nibbelin agreed with any motion to approve the project to include that specific requirement. He also agreed with a condition of approval that specifically required appropriate prior coordination with the family property owner who may be dealing with the storm water easement they were discussing. He reiterated that he would be in favor of a motion at this time that broadly contemplates those things.
Commissioner Godwin stated that he needed to ask a question about the tree ratio, i.e., does that include the dead tree, as he thought removing the dead tree is prudent with or without replacing.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that Commissioner Domurat had some interest in that particular issue in a prior project as well. He stated that the heritage tree ordinance does not discriminate against a living or dead tree in terms of its removal and replacement, and he was contemplating that it will be 3:1 on the three heritage tree removal for a minimum of 9 replacement trees.
Commissioner Leal had a clarification question on the boardwalk discussion, stating that he is envisioning this conversation is for an observation platform at the southern end of the property and there would be some sort of pathway that would make snake through the undeveloped portion of the parcel. He asked if that is the boardwalk that has been mentioned, he thinks by Commissioner Godwin.
Chair Nibbelin thought Commissioner Godwin did address what the contemplation was.
Commissioner Godwin stated that he was interested in some sort of restricted path through that area, and if it was above ground, i.e., an elevated path on post, it would be less disturbing to the birds.
Commissioner Leal stated that it could be similar to some of the boardwalks like Mori Point, etc.
11.e
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Commissioner Godwin stated that was what he was envisioning.
Chair Nibbelin stated that they could see if there is further comment or deliberation, or if someone felt they had digested everything that has been shared, a motion could also be in order.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he would be inclined but he needed about 30 seconds to collect his thoughts on the conditions of approval.
Chair Nibbelin stated that he will give him more than 30 seconds, and he can let him know when he is ready.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that they have language for potential condition of approval related to the adjacent property notification in relation to the overflow storm water drain improvement and it is available if the maker of the motion is interested.
Chair Nibbelin thought Commissioner Ferguson would likely ask for it.
Commissioner Ferguson responded that he would. He then asked of nine trees was the number if they were using 3:1 ratio.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he was correct that it was for the heritage tree replacement.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that there was a pot size they have been using for the last few projects that they set as a minimum.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he is correct and he stated that he has language for a potential condition to address that. He stated that it is a 24-inch box size which is typically what Commissioner Hauser has recommended, adding that she has some expertise in that area. He suggested for Commission’s consideration was to not consider all of the trees to be that size but some proportion of them. He understood, in speaking to arborists, that commonly smaller trees that are installed have a higher adaptability to survive because they grow and adjust to the planting site. It can be a shock from larger trees in a 24-inch box, so even though, if they look better sooner, they may not have a favorable long term performance and survivability. He stated that, assuming that is the case, they may consider some proportion to be that size, maybe the nine trees, some percentage. He would prepare draft language of 20% but that could be replaced with 9, but the language he would suggest they consider is related to the 27 Arroyo willow planting at not less than 20% or 9 as the case may be of the replacement trees shall be a minimum of 24-inch box size.
Commissioner Domurat asked if there was some kind of survivability of these 27 trees, and if there is something in regulation that says after an “X” amount of years, if they don’t survive, they have to replant. He stated that he was for 3-1 but he wonders if there was some type of improvement they can make to the wetland that would make it more productive, maybe they can offset the 3:1 to 2:1 or 1:1 in lieu of, then making some improvements to the wetland at that point.
11.e
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that, with respect to the landscaping, there is more than one way to go about it. He stated that some people are familiar with particular performance standards and they will often see them as part of a super document in the mitigation measure that, after three years, not less than 90% of the plantings will survive. He stated that they have what he thinks is better is a condition of approval of 18 on packet page 88, and it requires the planting shown in the landscaping plan for all of them to be maintained in a healthful condition and replaced when needed and determined by the Planning Director. Some require all to be maintained, and some of them may die now and then and, if that is the case, they need to be replaced. He stated that assures 100% survivability over time rather than 90% at three years or some other metric. It is for the duration of the project and not some initial term.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that, if the group consensus is ready to hear it, he is ready to make a motion.
Chair Nibbelin encourage him to go ahead.
Commissioner Ferguson moved that the Planning Commission ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; ADOPT the resolution included as Attachment A to the staff report to APPROVE Site Development Permit PSD-811-16, Use Permit UP-76-16, Parking Exception PE-183-19, Sign Permit S-129-19, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SUB-233-16, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization, subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit A of the resolution and to RECOMMEND City Council approval of a resolution to approve General Plan Amendment GPA-96-19 and ordinances to approve Development Agreement DA-4-21, Rezoning RZ-194-16 and Text Amendment TA-116-19 and INCORPORATE all maps, written records and reports and testimony into the record by reference, including also as conditions of approval to coordinate with adjoining property owner for the storm drain tie in as required by the city, condition of approval to include a raised and restricted boardwalk path to utilize the natural wetland space at the south end of the property as well as a condition of approval to replace each heritage tree removed with a ratio of at 3:1 for a total of nine minimum trees with at least 20% of those to be a minimum 24-inch box size.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock asked that he allow him to read the language about the property owner notification first and he may need some clarification on specific elements of the conditions of approval he mentioned. He stated that the condition of approval language that staff recommends related to the property owner notification is, “upon final map approval, the applicant shall provide written notice to the adjacent single family residential property owner at the point of connection for the emergency overflow shown on sheet TM-3, not less than 90 days prior to commencing the improvement located in the city storm drain easement. The improvement may proceed with the improvement designed as reviewed and approved by the city engineer upon the applicant assuming of this obligation”.
Commissioner Ferguson asked if it would be possible to amend that to be not less than 90 days in writing with a follow up of 48 hours prior to commencement of work.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock asked for input from Asst. City Attorney Sharma regarding that modification.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that there are no concerns from the City Attorney.
11.e
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Vice Char Berman had a clarification question regarding the deck condition that Commissioner Ferguson mentioned. She asked if he was pursuing the deck boardwalk idea where it would be installed above the wetland in the undeveloped area or the deck already proposed in the plans.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was proposing an additional deck raised and restricted so that people are able to be walking on an elevated boardwalk without the ability to leave that boardwalk through the wetland, in addition to the viewing deck already included in the plans.
Vice Chair Berman was curious if they could hear from the applicant if they are willing to add an improvement.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that staff may also want an opportunity to provide some considerations that they are discussing now.
Mr. Welte stated that he thought the owners would be willing to do that to some extent. They would want to work with the biology consultant to find the proper size and they would have to determine what would be the proper access to that, i.e., what the overall global conceptualization they had of how this land gets used in relation to the Community Center. He stated that they weren’t necessarily fencing off and precluding the community walking down the walkways or driveway to that boardwalk that they were proposing at the end of the driveway. He stated that, if this one was an expanded version of that, he knows that the biological consultant might have some concern about making it too invasive as he alluded to, and providing the proper size would be appropriate. He stated that, when you go through a national park, you see a sort of expanded version of a walking boardwalk cantilevered deck and like a passing lane and observation lane and maybe not larger than eight feet wide and keep it to something like that, and he thought that would make everyone happy and it would be a nice enhancement.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock stated that he wanted to offer an opportunity for the city’s CEQA consultant, Rod Stinson, to offer any thoughts about that potential additional work in the wetland area.
Rod Stinson, CEQA Consultant, added that, if they are extending improvements into that wetland area, it was an additional potential area of impact to wetlands that wasn’t necessarily addressed in the CEQA document. He stated that they identified a certain number of acres of wetland that would be potentially impacted and have mitigation measures requiring a no net loss. He noted that the mitigation measure would not necessarily change but the amount of acres that were identified as being impacted and would need to be mitigated for would slightly change, potentially based on what this final boardwalk design looks like.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock wanted to confirm with the maker of the motion as to whether the motion also included the amendments to the development agreement language in Section 5.1 that he read at the beginning of the public hearing.
Commissioner Ferguson stated that it did.
Chair Nibbelin stated that they had a motion and he asked if there was a second.
Commissioner Domurat seconded the motion.
11.e
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Dep. Planning Director Murdock clarified that the motion was as drafted in the staff report, with a recommended motion for approval with the amendment to Section 5.1 of the development agreement, as read into the record by staff during the public hearing and the new conditions of approval for notification to the adjacent property owner, not less than 90 days prior and again at 48 hours prior as read into the record, and a requirement for 3:1 heritage tree replacement ratio and not less than 20% of the Arroyo willows installed at a 24-inch box size, and the creation of an additional raised walkway for wetlands interpretation. He asked if he captured the points of the motion.
Commissioner Ferguson responded that he did perfectly.
Chair Nibbelin stated that Vice Chair Berman has her hand up.
Vice Chair Berman stated that she was sure it was fine but wanted to confirm what Mr. Stinson said about expanding the amount of impact on the previously assumed undeveloped land and she wondered if they need to hear from the Asst. City Attorney if that may have any CEQA ramifications. She was sure it as a small square footage, but she wondered if there was any concern that this would trigger another level of CEQA requirements.
Asst. City Attorney Sharma stated that it would be a fact specific investigation and she would defer to Mr. Stinson on that point.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock asked Mr. Stinson to elaborate on what the no net loss means in this context if they are potentially losing additional wetlands and where would that offsetting mitigation occur.
Mr. Stinson stated that the mitigation measure already requires a wetland delineation to be verified by the Army Corp of Engineers and the applicant to obtain a Section 404 permit to fill wetlands. He stated that now it requires a no net loss so they would need to either pay into a mitigation back or purchase wetlands out of the mitigation bank equivalent to the amount of acreage that is being lost in this case. He stated that now, the wetland delineation that has been conducted so far has set .77 acres of wetlands as being impacted. He stated that, to the extent that increases, based off the design of this deck, that number would go up and the applicant would then be responsible for mitigating an additional amount of acres. He stated that the mitigation measure language doesn’t necessarily need to change as it doesn’t specify how many acres.
Vice Chair Berman stated that he mentioned a fee for the mitigation, and she concluded that the applicant already paid a fee.
Mr. Stinson stated that he would be required to pay the fee through the 404 permitting process, but it would be through a mitigation bank.
Vice Chair Berman stated that the requirement was already triggered.
Mr. Stinson responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Godwin stated that he had a comment, as it didn’t seem like the motion didn’t include the electric car charger and he asked if that was intentional or unintentional.
11.e
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Planning Commission Minutes
March 7, 2022
Commissioner Ferguson stated that it didn’t and was intentional.
Dep. Planning Director Murdock took a verbal roll call.
The motion carried 6-0.
Ayes: Commissioners Berman, Domurat, Ferguson, Godwin,
Leal and Chair Nibbelin
Noes: None
Recused: Commissioner Hauser
Chair Nibbelin thanked staff for all the work and Commissioners for negotiating.
11.e
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes - March 7, 2022 (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi
CITY OF PACIFICA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Prepared By
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento CA 95834
Office 916.372.6100 Fax 916.419.6108
11.f
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
Page i
December 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................1 B. SOURCES ......................................................................................................................2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED..........................................5 D. DETERMINATION...........................................................................................................5 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION .........................................................................6 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................6 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST..................................................................................22 I. AESTHETICS. ...................................................................................................23 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. .................................................28 III. AIR QUALITY. ...................................................................................................29 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..............................................................................39 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ...............................................................................48 VI. ENERGY. ..........................................................................................................51 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.....................................................................................55 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ...................................................................59 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ....................................................62 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..............................................................67 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. ............................................................................73 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. ..................................................................................75 XIII. NOISE. ..............................................................................................................76 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING..........................................................................86 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES...........................................................................................87 XVI. RECREATION. ..................................................................................................90 XVII. TRANSPORTATION..........................................................................................91 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ..................................................................99 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ............................................................101 XX. WILDFIRE........................................................................................................104 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ..............................................105 APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results Appendix B: Biological Constraints Analysis, Biological Constraints Analysis Update, and Aquatic Resources Delineation
Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation and Response to Geotechnical Peer Review Appendix D: Environmental Noise Assessment
Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis
11.f
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
INITIAL STUDY
December 2021
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: 570 Crespi Drive Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Pacifica
Planning Department
540 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Christian Murdock
Deputy Planning Director
(650) 738-7341
4. Project Location: 540 and 570 Crespi Drive
Pacifica, CA 94044
APNs 022-162-130
and 022-162-420
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Brendan Murphy
P.O. Box 301
San Mateo, CA 94401
(650) 401-3642
6. Existing and Proposed General Plan Designation: Commercial
7. Existing Zoning Designation: Controlled Manufacturing District (M-1)
8. Proposed Zoning Designation: Community Commercial District (C-2)
9. Potential Approvals from Other Public Agencies: Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The 1.68-acre project site consists of 570 Crespi Drive and a portion of 540 Crespi Drive, located in the City of Pacifica, California. Surrounding land uses include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and State Route (SR) 1 to the northwest, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. In addition, the Ocean View Senior Apartments are located to the north of the site, across Crespi Drive. Per the City’s General Plan, the site is designated Commercial and zoned Controlled Manufacturing District (M-1).
11.f
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
11. Project Description Summary:
The 570 Crespi Drive Project (proposed project) would include development of one twostory mixed-use building (Building A) and two three-story residential buildings (Buildings B and C). The project would also include a condominium subdivision to create one commercial condominium and 19 residential condominiums. Building A would consist of 3,165-square feet (sf) of commercial space on the ground floor and three residential units on the second floor. Buildings B and C would be three stories each and would contain seven and nine townhomes, respectively, for a project-wide total of 19 units. The buildings would be constructed on the northernmost half of the site, while the southernmost half of the site would remain undisturbed. Three of the units would be ownership Below Market Rate (BMR) units pursuant to the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance. In addition, the project would involve off-site improvements, including construction of a new driveway and associated parking spaces within the northern portion of the existing Pacifica Community Center located immediately to the west at 540 Crespi Drive.
The proposed project would require approval of a Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or Lot Line Adjustment (LLA), and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization. The Development Agreement, among other things, would include the following developer requirements: (1) the creation of three BMR units; (2) an affordable housing contribution to City; (3) the construction of improvements at 540 Crespi Drive as noted above; (4) a driveway lease with City to allow the project to use the City’s driveway; and (5) wetland interpretative signage.
12. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:
Native American tribes in the project region have not requested notification of new development projects from the City. Thus, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), project notification letters were not distributed and requests for consultation were not received. Nonetheless, information request letters were sent in June 2020 to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Batista and the Ohlone Indian Tribe. Responses from the tribes have not been received.
B. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purposes of this Initial Study:
1. Barry Biermann, Deputy Fire Chief, North County Fire Authority. Personal communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. June 4, 2020.
2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.
3. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
4. California Building Standards Commission. California Green Building Standards Code. 2019.
5. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
6. California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Montara Mountain Quadrangle. June 15, 2009.
7. California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed June 2021.
8. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
9. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/ ?myaddress=570+Crespi+Drive%2C +Pacifica%2C+CA. Accessed June 2021.
10. California Department of Transportation. 2017 Traffic Volumes: Route 1. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/route-1.
Accessed June 2021.
11. California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highways Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 2020.
12. CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/ SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed June 2021.
13. City of Pacifica. Climate Action Plan. July 14, 2014.
14. City of Pacifica. Design Guidelines. Revised April 1990.
15. City of Pacifica. Pacifica Demographics: 2018. Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/eco_dev/census_facts_2000.asp. Accessed June 2021.
16. City of Pacifica. Pacifica General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. March 2014.
17. City of South San Francisco. Community Choice Energy. Available at:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/city-manager/sustainability/community-choice-energy #:~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20has%20joined ,instead%20of%20going%20thr ough%20PG%26E. Accessed June 2021.
18. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California.
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012.
19. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Construction Best Management Practices. Available at: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/stormwater_compliance/default.asp.
Accessed January 4, 2019.
20. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. June 2016.
21. City/County Association of Governments. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. April 9, 2020.
22. ENGEO, Inc. 570 Crespi Drive Pacifica, California Geotechnical Peer Review. March 2, 2020.
23. GeoForensics, Inc. Crespi Drive Property, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California, Response to Geotechnical Peer Review. April 30, 2020.
24. GeoForensics, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New Townhouse Complex and Commercial Building. January 5, 2016.
25. Heather Olsen, Superintendent, Pacifica School District. Personal Communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. May 27, 2020.
26. Monk and Associates Environmental Consultants. Biological Constraints Analysis 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica. October 8, 2014.
11.f
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
27. Native American Heritage Commission. 570 Crespi Drive Project, San Mateo County.
February 28, 2020.
28. North Coast County Water District. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 15, 2016.
29. North Coast County Water District. 20-Year Long-Term Water Master Plan. February 2016.
30. Northwest Information Center. Re: Record search results for the proposed project located at 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. March 10, 2020.
31. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
February 2015.
32. Pacifica School District. Level I Developer Fee Study for Pacifica School District. June 14, 2018.
33. Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. City of Pacifica, Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and Wastewater Collection System, Pacifica, San Mateo County. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/ board_info/agendas/2017/April/7_ssr.pdf. April 12, 2017.
34. RKH Civil and Transportation, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California. November 8, 2021.
35. San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 1996.
36. Saxelby Acoustics LLC. Environmental Noise Assessment, 570 Crespi Drive. June 9, 2021.
37. State of California. Division of Mines and Geology. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the South San Francisco Bay Production—Consumption Region.
Published 1996.
38. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed June 2021.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). December 2016.
40. Wood Biological Consulting. Aquatic Resources Delineation 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica CA. August 20, 2020.
41. Wood Biological Consulting. Biological Constraints Analysis – Update 540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica CA. August 17, 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Christian Murdock City of Pacifica
Printed Name For
11.f
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the 570 Crespi Drive project. The information and analysis presented in this document are organized in accordance with the order of the CEQA checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures that should be applied to the project are prescribed. All of the technical reports and modeling results used for the purposes of this analysis are available upon request at the City of Pacifica Planning Department.
The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS/MND will be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA. The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project through project conditions of approval. The City will adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project in conjunction with approval of the project.
In 1980, the City of Pacifica adopted the City of Pacifica General Plan. In March of 2014, the City of Pacifica released a Draft General Plan Update and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). However, the Draft General Plan Update and associated Draft EIR have not yet been adopted or certified by the City. Therefore, the analysis contained within this IS/MND relies on the guidelines and information contained within the adopted 1980 General Plan.. Although the 2014 Draft General Plan Update has not been adopted, the 2014 Draft General Plan Update contains background information related to the City that remains applicable.
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following provides a description of the project site location and setting, as well as the proposed project components and the discretionary actions required for the project.
Project Location and Setting
The 1.68-acre project site is located just south of Crespi Drive in the City of Pacifica, California (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The site consists of the entirety of the 0.98-acre lot identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 022-162-310, located at 570 Crespi Drive, and the southeastern
0.70-acre portion of APN 022-162-420, located at 540 Crespi Drive. Per the City’s General Plan, the site is designated Commercial and is zoned Controlled Manufacturing District (M-1).
The site is currently undeveloped and covered in dense vegetation. Several trees and shrubs are located throughout the project site. It is noted that the western portion of the site was recently disturbed during landscape improvements, while the southern portion of the site is predominantly characterized by a seasonal drainage and wetland area.
Surrounding land uses include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and SR 1 to the west, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. The Cabrillo Elementary School is located approximately 600 feet east of the project site and SR 1 is approximately 0.75-mile to the west of the site. In addition, the Ocean View Senior Apartments are located to the north of the site, across Crespi Drive.
11.f
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
Project Location
11.f
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 2
Project Site Boundaries
Cabrillo
Elementary
School
Ocean View
Senior Apartments
Pacifica
Community
Center
Pacifica
Skatepark
Off-Site
Improvement Area
Overall
Project Site
Remainder
Portion
Development
Area
11.f
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Project Components
The proposed project would include the purchase of a 0.70-acre portion of APN 022-162-420, located at 540 Crespi Drive, and a Lot Merger and/or LLA to combine the 0.70-acre portion of APN 022-162-420 and APN 022-162-310 (0.98 acre). The new 1.68-acre parcel would be developed with one two-story mixed-use building (Building A) and two three-story residential buildings (Buildings B and C) (see Figure 3). The project would include a condominium subdivision to create one commercial condominium and 19 residential condominiums. In addition, the project would involve off-site improvements, including construction of a new driveway and associated parking spaces within the northern portion of the existing Pacifica Community Center.
The proposed project would require approval of a Rezoning, Zoning Text Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, Site Development Permit, Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or LLA, and Heritage Tree Removal Authorization. Additional details regarding the requested approvals, proposed buildings, access and circulation, landscaping, utilities infrastructure, and off-site improvements are discussed below.
Rezoning / Zoning Text Amendment / General Plan Amendment / Development Agreement / Site Development Permit / Use Permit As part of the proposed project, the project site would be Rezoned from M-1 to the Community Commercial (C-2) zoning district. Per Municipal Code Section 9-4.1101(b)(8), residential dwelling units are conditionally allowable when located above the ground floor in the same building as a commercial use. As a result, approval of a Use Permit would be required in order to develop the three proposed units on the second story of Building A. A Site Development Permit and a Use Permit would be required to allow a clustered housing development pursuant to PMC Section 9-
4.2403.
In addition, a Zoning Text Amendment is proposed in order to allow residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in areas zoned C-2. Approval of the proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow for the development of Buildings B and C in the C-2 zoning district. The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would allow residential-only buildings to be constructed on sites that also contain a commercial building in areas throughout the City zoned C-2, subject to approval of a Use Permit. Approval of Use Permits is subject to the requirements of CEQA. Consequently, development of new residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses on other parcels zoned C-2 would require site-specific environmental review and would not be allowed by-right by the proposed Zoning Text Amendment.
Similar to the Zoning Text Amendment, a General Plan Amendment would be required to allow residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in areas with the Commercial land use designation.
The project would also include approval of a Development Agreement which would require the proposed project to construct 17 parking spaces at the adjacent Community Center.
Tentative Subdivision Map, Lot Merger and/or Lot Line Adjustment The proposed project would include approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map and a Lot Merger and/or LLA to combine APN 022-162-310, located at 570 Crespi Drive, and the southeastern
0.70-acre portion of APN 022-162-420, located at 540 Crespi Drive. The Tentative Subdivision Map would also include the creation of condominiums on the site. The Tentative Subdivision Map is provided as Figure 4.
11.f
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 3
Site Plan
11.f
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 4
Tentative Map
11.f
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Proposed Buildings
Building A would consist of 3,165 sf of commercial space on the ground floor and three residential units on the second floor. Buildings B and C would be three stories each and would contain seven and nine townhomes, respectively, for a project-wide total of 19 units. The buildings would be constructed on the northernmost half of the site, while the southernmost half of the site would remain undisturbed. Three residential units would be Below Market Rate ownership units. Refer to Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7 for the first-, second-, and third-story floor plans for all proposed buildings. Construction would occur over an approximately two-year period. Grading would involve import of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil.
As discussed above, Building A would be developed as a mixed-use building with the ground floor consisting of 3,165-sf of commercial space and three residential units on the second floor. The westernmost unit in Building A would be approximately 1,312 sf with one bedroom, two bathrooms, and two balconies. The center unit in Building A would be approximately 925 sf with one bedroom, one bathroom, and a single balcony. The easternmost unit in Building A would be approximately 1,312 sf with one bedroom, two bathrooms, and two balconies.
Building B would include seven town homes, and Building C would include nine townhomes. All units would include a tandem garage on the first floor with a first-floor entry, with the residential space included on the second and third floors.
The first-floor entryway, second floor, and third floor of each unit would total approximately 1,521 sf, with the exception that the southernmost unit in Building B would be 2,212 sf, and the southernmost unit in Building C would be 2,227 sf. A roof deck would be provided above each unit in Buildings B and C.
Parking, Access, and Circulation
Primary access to the project site would be provided from Crespi Drive. The driveway entrance would be provided along the eastern side of Building A and loop around the southern portion of Building A, before exiting the site to the west (refer to Figure 3). A two-way drive aisle would connect to the proposed loop to allow residents access to Building B and C. The first floor of Building B and Building C would include private tandem garages for each proposed unit.
Additionally, a total of 15 uncovered parking spaces would be provided on the project site, five of which would be located on the east side of Building A, seven located directly south of Building A, two south of Building B, and one south of Building C. Of the 47 total parking spaces provided onsite, three would provide electric vehicle charging.
The proposed project would also include improvements to the northern portion of the Pacifica Community Center parcel. The improvements would include construction of a new east to west driveway with seven uncovered parking spaces and a drop-off area intended for use by the Pacifica Community Center. The new driveway would connect to existing driveways located to the west and to the east of the Community Center.
Landscaping
The proposed project would include landscaping features throughout the development area, the off-site improvement area, and along the Crespi Drive frontage (see Figure 8 and Figure 9).
Proposed plant types include, but are not limited to, crape myrtle, desert willow, sea lavender, dwarf mat rush, and Cleveland sage. All landscaping improvements would be consistent with the City’s landscape design requirements, and would include at least two inches of mulch.
11.f
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 5
Floor Plan – Level 1
11.f
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 6
Floor Plan – Level 2
11.f
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 7
Buildings B and C Floor Plan – Level 3
11.f
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 8
Site Landscaping Plan
11.f
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 9
Off-Site Landscaping Plan
11.f
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Utilities
Sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the City. The proposed project would include connection to existing sanitary sewer infrastructure in Crespi Drive. Each building would be served by an eight-inch sanitary sewer line to connect to the proposed residential units (see Figure 10). In addition, each building would be constructed with a new sanitary sewer cleanout connected to the eight-inch sewer lines. The eight-inch lines would eventually connect to an existing sanitary sewer line within Crespi Drive to be routed to the City’s wastewater treatment plant.
Water service would be provided by the North Coast County Water District (NCCWD) through connection to the existing water main located at Crespi Drive. A four-inch water line would be routed from all three buildings to provide fire service, while a three-inch water line would be routed from the proposed buildings to provide domestic water services.
Electricity and natural gas services would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). A new vault would be constructed by PG&E in the northern portion of the project site, near Building A, to provide natural gas and electricity to the proposed structures. In addition, the proposed project would connect to existing telecommunications infrastructure in the project area.
All runoff from impervious areas within the project site, including all hardscape, parking areas, and driveways would be collected by new four-, six-, eight- and 10-inch storm drain pipes within the proposed driveway and parking area (see Figure 11). Runoff flowing through the storm drains would empty into proposed bioswales on the western and eastern boundaries of the site, or be directed to a bioretention area in the southeast corner of the project site. Treated stormwater would either be discharged into the vacant land to the south of the development area or into the City’s stormwater system through connection of an existing six-inch storm drain west of the site.
The proposed driveway and parking area north of the existing community center would be a selftreating area.
Off-Site Improvements
The proposed project would include various off-site improvements associated with the access and circulation. As discussed above, the proposed project would include construction of a new west to east driveway off Crespi Drive along the northern boundary of the Pacifica Community Center. Additional off-site improvements would include construction of 17 parking spaces to the west of the project site, a drop-off area, a new trash containment area, and landscape improvements. Figure 12 presents the proposed off-site improvements.
Discretionary Actions
The proposed project would require City approval of the following:
• Rezoning of the site from M-1 to C-2;
• Zoning Text Amendment to allow residential uses in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in C-2 zoning district;
• Development Agreement to require certain public benefits and to provide certain developer benefits;
• Use Permit to allow residential uses within the C-2 zone; • Site Development Permit and Use Permit to allow a clustered residential housing development; and
• Tentative Subdivision Map to create new residential and commercial condominiums; • Lot Merger and/or LLA to merge APN 022-162-310 and a portion of APN 022-162-420; and • Heritage Tree Removal Authorization to authorize heritage tree removal.
11.f
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 10
Preliminary Utility Plan
11.f
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 11
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan
11.f
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 12
Off-Site Improvements
11.f
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
11.f
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Discussion
a. Examples of typical scenic vistas would include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista.
Policy 3 in the Community Design Element of the City’s General Plan sets the goal of protecting the City’s irreplaceable scenic and visual amenities, but does not define or identify specific scenic vistas.
Land uses surrounding the project site include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and SR 1 to the northwest, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. In addition, the Ocean View Senior Apartments are located to the north of the site, across Crespi Drive.
The project site is currently designated by the City of Pacifica General Plan as Commercial. Given that the project would be consistent with the existing General Plan designation of the site, the proposed project would not be substantially different than what has been anticipated in the City’s General Plan. In addition, the proposed off-site improvements would consist of minor upgrades to the existing Pacifica Community Center.
It is noted that although the project requires approval of a Rezoning and a Zoning Text Amendment, the proposed project would result in similar visual features as that of mixeduse commercial and residential development and would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site.
Based on the above, designated scenic vistas do not exist in the project area, and the project is consistent with the level of development that has been anticipated for the site in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
b. The City does not contain an Officially Designated Scenic Highway.1 SR 1, located approximately 0.75-mile west of the project site, is an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated. In addition, the project site is only partially visible from SR 1 due to existing development between the site and SR 1. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the developed nature of the surrounding area. It should also be noted that a portion of the trees at the project site frontage would be retained as part of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. As such, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City. As noted above, surrounding land uses include the Pacifica Community Center, Pacifica Skatepark, and SR 1 to the northwest, commercial businesses to the north and southeast, an elementary school to the east, and single-family residences to the south. In addition, the Pacific Ocean is located further west of the site, beyond SR 1. Currently, the project site is vacant and partially covered in vegetation. Several trees and shrubs are located throughout the project site. Because the proposed project would include a Rezoning, the proposed change in zoning has the potential to conflict with zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. The following discussion evaluates the proposed project’s aesthetic consistency with surrounding land uses, and compliance with regulations related to scenic quality.
As shown in Figure 13, the primary view of the project site from Crespi Drive consists of vegetation, trees, and shrubbery, as well as the existing hillside to the east. Additionally, it is noted that the project site has been subject to previous disturbance related to development and subsequent demolition of buildings that had been located on the project site. As a result, the existing visual character of the project site does not represent natural and/or non-urban conditions. The anticipated view of the project site from Crespi Drive following implementation of the proposed project is shown in Figure 14. As demonstrated therein, the visual character of the project site would partially change as a result of the proposed project. Although the proposed project would include the removal of several onsite trees, the project would preserve trees along the project site frontage and within the off-site improvement area. In addition, the project site has been planned for development and, as a result, such a change in visual character has been previously anticipated and evaluated.
As shown in Figure 15, views of the hillside to the east of the project site are available from SR 1. As shown in Figure 16, the existing views of the hills behind the proposed buildings would remain following implementation of the project. Additionally, the site is surrounded by existing development and the project would be consistent with the scale of existing nearby development. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site and the surrounding area.
Furthermore, development of the of the proposed project and associated changes to the visual character and quality of the site have been anticipated by the City’s General Plan because the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. Additionally, the proposed off-site improvements would include minor upgrades to the Pacific Community Center property to construct a new driveway and 17 parking spaces, and would be consistent with the type and scale of the existing development. 1 California Department of Transportation. Scenic Highways Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/laplandscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 13
Current View of Site from Crespi Drive
Figure 14
Proposed View of Project Site from Crespi Drive
11.f
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 15
Current View of Site from SR 1
Figure 16
Proposed View of the Project Site from SR 1
11.f
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Although the project would require approval of a Rezoning and a Zoning Text Amendment, the proposed project would be generally consistent with the surrounding land use types and development intensity. For instance, the surrounding area is currently occupied by single- and multi-family residences, as well as commercial uses. Based on the above, the proposed project is within the scope of what has been anticipated for development on the project site by the City, and is consistent with the developed nature of the surrounding area.
Based on the above, the project site is located in an urbanized area, and development of the project has been generally anticipated by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic qualities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. The project site is currently undeveloped and consists of areas with dense vegetation, ruderal grasses, and dirt patches. Sources of light and glare do not exist on the project site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare where none currently exist. Sources of light would include, but would not be limited to, illuminated signage, exterior and interior lighting associated with the proposed townhouses, and vehicle headlights within the site. The new structures would include windows which could reflect light and create glare in the surrounding area. However, the structures would be set back from the street by at least 15 feet and windows would not directly face the entrance of any nearby residence. Furthermore, because existing development is located to the south, east, and west, the increase in light and glare sources would be consistent with the existing setting and would not be expected to result in significant adverse effects to daytime and nighttime views in the area.
In addition, the Pacifica Design Guidelines require that exterior lighting is subdued and enhance building design.2 The Guidelines prohibit use of lighting that creates glare for occupants or neighbors, and require that large areas requiring illumination are lit with low, shielded fixtures. The proposed off-site parking spaces would be subject to such Guidelines as well. Compliance with the Pacifica Design Guidelines would ensure that the project would not introduce sources of light or glare that would pose a hazard or nuisance to neighboring development.
As such, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
2 City of Pacifica. Design Guidelines [pg. 3]. Revised April 1990.
11.f
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
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?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a,e. Per the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Finder, the project site consists entirely of Urban and Built-Up Land.3 Furthermore, the site is not zoned or designated in the General Plan for agriculture uses. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to converting Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use or involving other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
b. Currently, the project site is designated Commercial per the City’s General Plan and is zoned M-1. Although the proposed project would include a Rezone of the site to C-2, the City has anticipated development of the site with non-agricultural uses. Furthermore, the site is not under a Williamson Act contract and is not zoned for agricultural uses.
Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur. c,d. The project area is not considered forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning. 3 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. Accessed June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Pacifica is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The SFBAAB area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone, State and federal fine particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State respirable particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) ambient air quality standards (AAQS). The SFBAAB is designated attainment or unclassified for all other AAQS. It should be noted that on January 9, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 federal AAQS. Nonetheless, the Bay Area must continue to be designated as nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 AAQS until such time as the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the USEPA, and the USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.
In compliance with regulations, due to the nonattainment designations of the area, the BAAQMD periodically prepares and updates air quality plans that provide emission reduction strategies to achieve attainment of the AAQS, including control strategies to reduce air pollutant emissions through regulations, incentive programs, public education, and partnerships with other agencies. The current air quality plans are prepared in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The most recent federal ozone plan is the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan, which was adopted on October 24, 2001 and approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 1, 2001. The plan was submitted to the USEPA on November 30, 2001 for review and approval. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard is not required, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.
The aforementioned air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal AAQS within the SFBAAB. Adopted BAAQMD rules and regulations, as well as thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area
11.f
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. The BAAQMD’s established significance thresholds associated with development projects for emissions of the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), as well as for PM10, and PM2.5, expressed in pounds per day (lbs/day) and tons per year (tons/yr), are listed in Table 1. By exceeding the BAAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
Table 1
BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant
Construction Operational
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs/day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs/day)
Maximum Annual
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10
Source: BAAQMD, CEQA Guidelines, May 2017.
The proposed project’s construction and operational emissions were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2020.4.0 – a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including construction data, trip generation rates, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, and compliance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). Where project-specific information is available, such information should be applied in the model. Accordingly, the proposed project’s modeling assumes the following project and/or site-specific information:
• Construction would begin in October 2021;
4 • Construction would occur over an approximately two-year period; • Grading would involve import of approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil; • The project site is located within 0.01-mile of the nearest transit stop; and • The project would comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the 2019 CALGreen Code.
The modeling incorporated construction of the off-site improvements as well. The proposed project’s estimated emissions associated with construction and operations are presented and discussed in further detail below. A discussion of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality conditions is provided below as well. All CalEEMod results are included as Appendix A to this IS/MND.
4 It is noted that, in reality, construction is not anticipated to occur until 2022. However, by assuming that construction would commence at an earlier date, the modeling prepared for the project presents a more conservative analysis.
As technology improves and State regulations governing heavy-duty equipment become more stringent, air quality emissions associated with construction tend to decrease. Therefore, construction-related emissions associated with this proposed project are likely to be less than those values presented in this Initial Study.
11.f
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Construction Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project, including the off-site improvements, would result in maximum unmitigated construction criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 2. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance for NOX, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5.
Table 2
Maximum Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance
Exceeds
Threshold?
ROG 2.18 54 NO
NOX 21.75 54 NO
PM10* 0.94 82 NO
PM2.5* 0.86 54 NO
Note:
* Denotes emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Source: CalEEMod, June 2021 (see Appendix A).
All projects under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD are required to implement all of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, which include the following:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
The proposed project’s required implementation of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures listed above would help to further minimize construction-related emissions.
11.f
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Even without consideration of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as shown in Table 2, construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants below BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with air quality plans during project construction.
Operational Emissions
According to the CalEEMod results, the proposed project would result in maximum unmitigated operational criteria air pollutant emissions as shown in Table 3. As shown in the table, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance.
Table 3
Unmitigated Maximum Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Proposed Project
Emissions
Threshold of
Significance Exceeds
lbs/day tons/yr lbs/day tons/yr Threshold?
ROG 8.64 0.16 54 10 NO
NOX 0.82 0.10 54 10 NO
PM10* 1.49 0.01 82 15 NO
PM2.5* 1.49 0.01 54 10 NO
* Emissions from exhaust only. BAAQMD does not have adopted PM thresholds for fugitive emissions.
Source: CalEEMod, June 2021 (see Appendix A).
Because the proposed project’s operational emissions would be below the applicable thresholds of significance, the proposed project would not be considered to conflict with air quality plans during project operations.
Cumulative Emissions
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. A single project is not sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. 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 developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The thresholds of significance presented in Table 1 represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. If a project exceeds the significance thresholds presented in Table 1, the proposed project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Because the proposed project would not result in emissions above the applicable thresholds of significance for ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5, the project would not 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.
11.f
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Conclusion
As stated previously, the applicable regional air quality plans include the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Because the proposed project would not result in construction-related or operational emissions of criteria air pollutants in excess of BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, conflicts with or obstruction of the implementation of regional air quality plans would not occur. In addition, the project would not 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. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would result.
c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The nearest sensitive receptors include the Pacifica Community Center, located approximately 50 feet to the west, the Ocean View Senior Apartments, located approximately 150 feet to the north, and the existing single-family residences, located approximately 200 feet to the south. Cabrillo Elementary School is located approximately 600 feet east of the project site.
The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and TAC emissions, which are addressed in further detail below.
Localized CO Emissions
Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. High levels of localized CO concentrations are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high.
Emissions of CO are of potential concern, as the pollutant is a toxic gas that results from the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels such as gasoline or wood.
In order to provide a conservative indication of whether a project would result in localized CO emissions that would exceed the applicable threshold of significance, the BAAQMD has established screening criteria for localized CO emissions. According to BAAQMD, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to localized CO emission concentrations if all of the following conditions are true for the project:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans;
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, underpass, etc.).
11.f
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
As discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, given that the project would generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips and would be consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use designation, the project would not conflict with the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP).5 In addition, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) performed traffic counts for the State Highway System in 2017. The results determined that the largest nearby intersection, at Linda Mar Boulevard and SR 1, experiences traffic volumes ranging from 2,000 to 3,300 trips per peak hour, which is far below BAAQMD’s threshold of 44,000 vehicles per hour.6 Thus, the minimal number of trips generated by the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at an affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Furthermore, areas where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is limited due to tunnels, underpasses, or similar features do not exist in the project area. As such, the proposed project would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of localized CO.
TAC Emissions
Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to pollutant concentrations would correlate to a higher health risk.
The proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major sources of TACs, including DPM. As such, the proposed project would not generate any substantial pollutant concentrations during operations. However, shortterm, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, primarily DPM, from off-road equipment exhaust emissions. Consequently, the operation of off-road equipment within the project site during project construction could result in exposure of nearby students and residents to DPM.
BAAQMD has established thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts that may be used when siting new sources of pollution. The BAAQMD’s thresholds for analyzing health risks from new sources of emissions are presented below:
• Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan;
• An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution; or
• An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 )
annual average PM2.5 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution. 5 City/County Association of Governments. San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. April 9, 2020. 6 California Department of Transportation. 2017 Traffic Volumes: Route 1. Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census/traffic-volumes/2017/route-1. Accessed June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Although the proposed project would not involve the siting or operation of any permanent sources of TACs, in the absence of specific thresholds for use when analyzing health risks from short-term projects, the foregoing BAAQMD thresholds are applied to the project, for construction specifically.
To analyze potential health risks to nearby students and residents that could result from DPM emissions from off-road equipment at the project site, total DPM emissions from project construction were estimated. DPM is considered a subset of PM2.5 and, thus, the CalEEMod estimated PM2.5 emissions from exhaust during construction of the proposed structures as well as the off-site improvements was conservatively assumed to represent all DPM emitted on-site. The CalEEMod estimated PM2.5 exhaust emissions were then used to calculate the concentration of DPM at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor near the project site. DPM concentrations resulting from project implementation were estimated using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency (AMS/EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD). The associated cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index were calculated using the CARB’s Hotspot Analysis Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP 2) Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST), which calculates the cancer and non-cancer health impacts using the risk assessment guidelines of the 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.7 The modeling was performed in accordance with the USEPA’s User’s Guide for the AERMOD and the 2015 OEHHA Guidance Manual.8,9 The results of the air dispersion modeling are presented in Figure 17. As shown therein, the maximally exposed receptor, depicted by a white X, would be located immediately northeast of the project site.
Based on the foregoing methodology, and the methodology presented in response to questions ‘a’ and ‘b’ regarding the estimation of construction emissions, the cancer risk and non-cancer hazard indices at the maximally exposed receptor were estimated and are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Maximum Unmitigated Cancer Risk and Hazard Index
Associated with Project Construction DPM
Cancer Risk
(per million
persons)
Acute
Hazard
Index
Chronic
Hazard
Index
Construction DPM Health Risks 8.67 0.00 0.01
Thresholds of Significance 10.00 1.00 1.00
Exceed Thresholds? NO NO NO
Source: AERMOD and HARP 2 RAST, June 2021 (see Appendix A).
As shown in Table 4, construction of the proposed project would not result in cancer risk, acute hazards, or chronic hazards in excess of BAAQMD’s standards. 7 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments [pg. 8-18]. February 2015. 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). December 2016. 9 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.
11.f
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 17
Air Dispersion Modeling Results
Source: AERMOD, June 2021 (see Appendix A).
Ocean View
Senior Apartments
Cabrillo
Elementary School
11.f
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
In addition, the maximum annual concentration of DPM at the maximally-exposed sensitive receptor from construction of the proposed project would be 0.028 µg/m3 , which
is well below the BAAQMD’s 0.3 µg/m3 threshold for a cumulatively considerable impact.
Thus, construction of the proposed project would not result in exposure of nearby receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Criteria Pollutants
The BAAQMD thresholds of significance were established with consideration given to the health-based air quality standards established by the federal and State AAQS, and are designed to aid the BAAQMD in achieving attainment of the AAQS.10 Although the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance are intended to aid achievement of the AAQS for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment, the thresholds of significance do not represent a level above which individual project-level emissions would directly result in public health impacts. Nevertheless, a project’s compliance with BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance provides an indication that criteria pollutants released as a result of project implementation would not inhibit attainment of the health-based regional AAQS. Because project-related emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds, and, thus, would not inhibit attainment of regional AAQS, the criteria pollutants emitted during project implementation would not be anticipated to result in measurable health impacts to sensitive receptors.
Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of criteria pollutants.
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not expose any sensitive receptors to excess concentrations of localized CO or criteria pollutants during construction or operation. In addition, construction of the project would not result in exposure of nearby receptors to cancer risks in excess of the BAAQMD’s standards.
Consequently, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Emissions such as those leading to odors have the potential to adversely affect sensitive receptors within the project area. Pollutants of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants have been discussed in section “a” through “c” above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors and dust.
Per the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard.11 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor.
Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative analysis to determine the presence of a significant odor impact is difficult. Typical odor-generating 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines [pg. 7-1].
May 2017.
11.f
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses and is not located in the vicinity of any such existing or planned land uses.
Construction activities often include diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, which could create odors associated with diesel fumes that may be considered objectionable.
However, as discussed above, construction activities would be temporary, and hours of operation for construction equipment would be restricted per Section 8-7.5.07 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors. Accordingly, substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during construction activities.
It should be noted that BAAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which does not become applicable until the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period. Once effective, Regulation 7 places general limitation on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds, which remain effective until such time that citizen complaints have been received by the APCO for one year.
The limits of Regulation 7 become applicable again when the APCO receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90-day period. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed project is developed, the BAAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed and any potential odor effects reduced to less than significant.
As noted previously, all projects under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD are required to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The aforementioned measures would act to reduce construction related dust, such as the watering of exposed surfaces, covering of haul trucks, and reduction of truck speed on unpaved roads, which would ensure that construction of the proposed project does not result in substantial emissions of dust. Following project construction, the project site would not include any exposed topsoil. Thus, project operations would not include any substantial sources of dust.
For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would result.
11.f
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a. It is noted that the off-site improvements would occur on landscaped areas of the Pacifica Community Center property that currently consist of maintained turf/grass. The landscape grass is subjected to regular mowing and standard maintenance. Landscape grass does not provide habitat for special-status wildlife species. Thus, implementation of the proposed off-site improvements was assumed to not impact any special-status wildlife species, and the following discussion focuses exclusively on the project site.
The following discussion is based on a Biological Constraints Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Monk and Associates,12 as well as the associated Biological Constraints Analysis Update prepared by Wood Biological Consulting (see Appendix B). 13 The project site is situated within a residential and commercial neighborhood of Linda Mar, and ranges from approximately 15 feet of elevation (relative to a City benchmark in Crespi Drive) at the northeastern end of the parcel to approximately nine feet at the southwestern end. The climate is cool and temperate, characteristic of the San Francisco Peninsula coastal region. Currently, the northern portion of the project site supports several large Monterey cypress trees with a groundcover of predominantly non-native herbaceous vegetation. The southern portion of the project site gradually becomes dominated by perennial wetland vegetation, such as willows, cattails and sedges. 12 Monk and Associates Environmental Consultants. Biological Constraints Analysis 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica. October 8, 2014. 13 Wood Biological Consulting. Biological Constraints Analysis – Update 540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica CA.
August 17, 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
According to the Biological Constraints Analysis Update, the following vegetation types occur on the project site (see Figure 18 for on-site vegetation and habitat types):
1. Arroyo Willow Scrub: Willow scrub, dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), covers the majority of the southern portion of the project site. The willows form a dense and impenetrable thicket with few associated plant species.
2. Emergent Marsh: Emergent marsh occupies a shallow topographic depression in the middle part of the project site, corresponding with the small area that previously had shallow ponded water in the winter. Seasonally high groundwater presumably persists, resulting in a predominance of emergent marsh plant species, such as Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), broadleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia), Pacific silverweed (Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica), and dotted smartweed (Persicaria punctata), among others.
3. Non-native Annual Grassland: Non-native grassland vegetation is present on the majority of the northern part of the project site. Dominant plant species are annual grasses, such as bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus), slender oats (Avena barbata), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), with various non-native broad-leaf herbaceous species.
4. Disturbed and Ornamental: Disturbed habitat includes land cleared of vegetation or lands that have undergone frequent or extensive alteration to the extent that the site is dominated by non-native plant species. This habitat type also includes areas subject to periodic vegetation management, such as mowing or brush clearing, which preclude the re-establishment of native vegetation communities. Within the project vicinity, a parking area adjacent to Crespi Drive and a gravel staging area are disturbed habitat. Ornamental vegetation consists of maintained and unmaintained landscaping using native and non-native plants.
As part of the biological report prepared for the proposed project, a search of published records of special-status plant and wildlife species for the project site and a five-mile radius was conducted using the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Rarefind 5 application. The intent of the database review was to identify documented occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the project area, to determine their locations relative to the project site, and for use in the field assessment of habitats suitable for special-status species within the site. In addition, site visits were conducted in September 2014 and in July of 2020. Based on the aforementioned sources, the Biological Constraints Analysis Update identified 29 special-status plant and 16 special-status wildlife species as having been documented within a five-mile radius of the project site.
None of the species were recorded on the project site.
Special-status species include the following:
• Plant and wildlife species that have been formally listed, are proposed as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. Both acts afford protection to listed and proposed species;
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Birds of Conservation Concern; • Sensitive species included in USFWS Recovery Plans; and • CDFW special-status invertebrates.
11.f
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 18
Vegetation and Habitat Types
Source: Wood Biological Consulting, 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Although CDFW Species of Special Concern generally do not have special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA. In addition to regulations for specialstatus species, most birds in the U.S., including non-status species, are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Under the MBTA, destroying active nests, eggs, and young is illegal. In addition, plant species on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists 1 and 2 are considered special-status plant species and are protected under CEQA.
Special-status Plant Species
Based on review of the project site and surrounding area, 29 special-status plant species have been documented within five miles of the project site. However, the project site has low potential to support any special-status plant species documented in the area due to the absence of suitable habitat (i.e., chaparral, coastal bluffs, woodland, etc.). In addition, none of the species were identified during either field survey. Thus, the proposed project would not adversely impact special-status plant species.
Special-status Wildlife Species
Of the 16 special-status wildlife species that have been documented within the five-mile radius of the project site, only one was identified to have the potential to occur on the project site: a bird protected under the MBTA, the Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (SCY).
The remaining species are considered to be unlikely or not possible to occur on the project site based on habitat features, such as the location of the site outside of the species’ historical range, the lack of suitable aquatic habitat, lack of suitable foraging or nesting habitat, and lack of a den or cave development area.
Nesting and Migratory Birds
Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Raptors, passerines, non-passerine land birds, and waterfowl are further protected under the Federal MBTA of 1918. The MBTA prohibits the take, possession, purchase, sale, or bartering of any migratory bird, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations. All migratory bird species are protected by the MBTA. Any disturbance that causes direct injury, death, nest abandonment, or forced fledging of migratory birds, is restricted under the MBTA. Any removal of active nests during the breeding season or any disturbance that results in the abandonment of nestlings is considered a ‘take’ of the species under federal law.
In addition to the special-status birds identified within five miles of the study area in the CNDDB search, the USFWS IPaC database also identified 19 species of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty act and Bald Eagle Protection Act, and are considered Bird Species of Conservation Concern. Six of the identified species (Allen’s hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, song sparrow, spotted towhee, wren-tit, and SCY) have low probability of nesting in the project site, but cannot be entirely ruled out. Disturbance from construction activities could result in direct and indirect impacts to nesting or migratory birds. As a result, adverse impacts to nesting and migratory birds and raptors could occur as a result of the proposed project.
Conclusion
Per the Biological Constraints Analysis and Biological Constraints Analysis Update, special-status plant species are not expected to occur on-site, and, thus, would not be impacted by the proposed project. In addition, 15 of the 16 wildlife species that have been documented within five miles of the project site do not have the potential to occur on-site based on habitat requirements. However, nesting and migratory birds, including the SCY, have the potential to occupy the project site. Therefore, a potentially significant impact
11.f
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
regarding a substantial adverse effect on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
Special-Status and Migratory Birds
IV-1. To ensure compliance with protections for migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, the measures outlined below shall be implemented prior to the commencement of construction activities. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval.
1. If construction activities are scheduled to occur outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 1 through January 31), no preconstruction surveys or other mitigation measures are necessary.
2. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted on the identified work area and a buffer zone (see #3, below). The survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of work. If no nesting or breeding activity is observed, work may proceed without restrictions. To the extent allowed by access, all active nests identified within 76 meters (m) (250 feet [ft]) for raptors and 33 m (100 ft) for other protected bird species shall be mapped.
3. For any active nests found near the construction limits (76 m [250 ft] for raptors and 33 m [100 ft] for other protected bird species), the project biologist shall make a determination as to whether or not construction activities are likely to disrupt reproductive behavior. If it is determined that construction is unlikely to disrupt breeding behavior, construction may proceed. If it is determined that construction may disrupt breeding, the no-construction buffer zone shall be expanded; avoidance is the only mitigation available. The ultimate size of the no-construction buffer zone may be adjusted by the project biologist based on the species involved, topography, lines of site between the work area and the nest, physical barriers, and the ambient level of human activity. For raptors, the project biologist shall contact CDFW and/or the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management for guidance regarding site evaluations and buffer adjustments.
If it is determined that construction activities are likely to disrupt raptor breeding, construction activities within the no-construction buffer zone may not proceed until the project biologist determines that the nest is long longer occupied.
4. If maintenance of a no-construction buffer zone is not practicable, active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to document
11.f
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
breeding and rearing behavior of the adult birds. If it is determined that construction activities might cause nest abandonment, work should cease until the project biologist determines that the nest is no longer occupied. For raptors, the CDFW and/or the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management should be contacted for guidance.
b,c. Sensitive biological communities include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values, such as wetlands, streams, or riparian habitat. The habitats are protected under federal regulations, such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and State regulations, such as the Porter-Cologne Act and the CDFW Streambed Alteration Act.
The off-site improvement area consists primarily of maintained landscape turf and does not include any aquatic features. The project site, however, was surveyed as part the Biological Constraints Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Monk and Associates, as well as an Aquatic Resources Delineation Summary prepared by Wood Biological Consulting.14
Wetlands or other surface waters are not identified in the National Wetlands Inventory as occurring on the project site. In addition, the project site is not located on a stream or near other surface waters. However, per the Biological Constraints Analysis, the southern onehalf or more of the project site would likely be regarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as subject to their jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA.
Any proposed fill of the mapped wetland area would require a permit from the USACE.
Additionally, because the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) does not have a formal method for technically defining what constitutes waters of the state, the RWQCB typically rely on the USACE’s methods for delineation of CWA-regulated waters of the State. As a result, the southern portion of the site could be considered waters of the State.
The wetlands located in the southern portion of the project site are considered waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA. The proposed project is anticipated to disturb and, possibly, fill, up to 0.77-acre of wetlands. As such, without the implementation of mitigation, a potentially significant impact related to riparian habitat and protected wetlands could occur as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
IV-2(a). Prior to the start of any construction activities, a temporary sediment and debris barrier shall be installed on the southern limit of the construction area that slopes toward the arroyo willow and emergent wetland habitat.
The fence also will double as a wildlife exclusion fence during construction.
The fence shall consist of standard construction silt fence material with a height of 36 inches. The lower six inches of fence material shall either be folded toward the construction side of the fence and weighted down with soil or sandbags, or backfilled in a trench; with both methods, the purpose is to completely contact the surface so that water and sediment will not flow under it, and wildlife will not enter the work area from the wetland. The barrier shall be maintained throughout the duration of the construction 14 Wood Biological Consulting. Aquatic Resources Delineation 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica CA. August 20, 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
period. Evidence of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department prior to the start of any construction activities.
IV-2(b). A qualified biologist, or a designated representative who has been trained by a qualified biologist, shall inspect the area inside of the sediment and debris barrier for special-status species every day before construction activities commence. If any special‐status species are found, the qualified biologist shall be immediately contacted [if the survey was conducted by the designated representative], construction activities shall not be allowed to start, and the USFWS and CDFW shall be consulted on an appropriate course of action. Such action could include leaving the animal alone to move away on its own or the relocation of the animal to an area outside of the construction area. Evidence of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department.
IV-3. Prior to initiation of grading, excavation, or other construction activities, the applicant shall obtain permit authorization, as determined by USACE, to fill waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (Section 404 Permit) from USACE. The Section 404 Permit application shall include an assessment of directly impacted, avoided, and preserved acreages of waters of the U.S. Mitigation measures may be developed as part of the Section 404 Permit to ensure no net loss of wetland function and values, although the USACE may not require compensatory mitigation for the loss of less than 1/10 acre of wetlands, or for the loss of streams or other open waters. Final mitigation requirements shall be developed in consultation with USACE. A copy of the Section 404 Permit issued for the project shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department prior to commencement of grading, excavation, or other construction activities.
IV-4. If required and prior to initiation of grading, excavation or other construction activities, the project applicant shall submit to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board an application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements for Projects Involving Discharge of Dredged and/or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The project applicant shall be responsible for conducting all project activities in accordance with the permit provisions outlined in the applicable permit. A copy of the Water Quality Certification or waiver issued for the project shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department prior to commencement of grading, excavation, or other construction activities.
d. Environmental corridors are segments of land that provide a link between different habitats while also providing cover. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation have the potential to alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e., linear habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise distinct larger habitats or habitat fragments). The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor’s dimensions (length and width), topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.
The project site is not considered a wildlife corridor, though local wildlife may move through the site occasionally. Habitat in the surrounding area is largely fragmented due to the
11.f
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
presence of existing residential and commercial development as well as roadways. The project site is surrounded by existing development and does not connect to any existing habitat areas, which eliminates the possibility that the site could act as a wildlife movement corridor. Furthermore, the proposed project would leave the southern portion of the site undisturbed, which would allow any wildlife species to inhabit the undeveloped area.
Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors and a less-than-significant impact would occur. e. Title 4, Chapter 12 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Preservation of Heritage Trees) stipulates regulations designed to preserve and protect heritage trees on private or Cityowned property. In general, heritage trees are defined as any trees within the City, exclusive of eucalyptus, which have a trunk with a circumference of fifty inches (approximately sixteen inches in diameter) or more, measured at twenty-four inches above the natural grade. Sections 4-12.02 and 4-12.03 of the Municipal Code provide a complete definition of a heritage tree. Per Sections 4-12.07 and 4-12.08 of the Municipal Code, tree protection plans are required when engaging in new construction within the drip-line of a heritage tree. The plan must be prepared by a qualified arborist, horticulturist, landscape architect or other qualified person.
Removal of vegetation or any tree which is not a heritage tree does not require a City tree removal permit. Logging in Pacifica is regulated by Ordinance Nos. 636-C.S. and 673- C.S. Logging operations within the City are defined as any removal, destruction, or harvesting of 20 or more trees within one year from any parcel or contiguous parcel in the same ownership.
At least eight trees are planned for removal in order to facilitate construction of the proposed project. Per the Biological Constraints Analysis, the northern portion of the project site supports at least two Monterey cypress trees that are considered heritage trees. Further evaluation is required in order to identify if any other individual trees are protected under the City’s Preservation of Heritage Trees ordinance. Furthermore, because some trees would remain on-site, a tree protection plan would be required in accordance with Sections 4-12.07 and 4-12.08 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Without compliance with the foregoing regulations, a potentially significant impact could occur related to conflicting with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
IV-5. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a qualified arborist shall survey the on-site trees and evaluate which trees are protected under Title 4, Chapter 12 of the City’s Municipal Code, and the project applicant shall obtain Heritage Tree Removal Authorization from the City of Pacifica Planning Commission for any heritage trees to be removed, work within the dripline of any heritage tree, or substantial trimming of any heritage tree.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall complete planting of any replacement trees required as part of the Planning Commission’s heritage tree removal authorization or other authorizations.
In addition, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a tree protection plan prior to the approval of heritage tree removal authorizations or other
11.f
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
authorizations in accordance with the City Municipal Code, Sections 4-
12.02 through 4-12.11, and prior to commencement of any construction activity shall implement any tree protection measures identified to protect trees which will not be removed during construction.
f. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Conservation Community Plans covering the project site do not exist. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of such a plan, and no impact would occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Discussion
a-c. Historical resources are typically features that are associated with the lives of historically important persons and/or historically significant events, that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the pre-history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Examples of typical historical resources include, but are not limited to, buildings, farmsteads, rail lines, bridges, and trash scatters containing objects such as colored glass and ceramics.
Currently, the project site is vacant. Thus, the site does not contain any permanent structures which could be considered historical resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, portions of the project site that would be developed as part of the project have been subject to previous disturbance. According to the Pacifica General Plan, the only federal and State listed historic resource within the area is the Historic Sanchez Adobe, which is located 0.75-miles southeast of the project site. Thus, the project site does not contain any existing structures or other above-ground resources that could be considered historic. However, the potential exists for previously unknown historic-era subsurface resources to occur on the project site. If present, such resources could be adversely affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction.
A records search of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) was performed on March 10, 2020 by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) for cultural resource site records and survey reports within the project area. According to the records search, the project site does not contain any documented archaeological resources.
However, the NWIC also stated that the California Inventory of Historic Resources lists one of the Portola Expedition camps in close proximity to the project site. In addition, Portola’s San Francisco Bay Discovery site is in close proximity to the project site. Based on such, the NWIC concluded that the project site has a moderate potential for unrecorded archaeological resources to occur.
15 The off-site improvement area is already developed with turf landscaping, and the minor paving that is proposed would be constructed near the surface of the ground which would not result in substantial ground disturbance. Nonetheless, in the unlikely chance that cultural resources are encountered during construction, a potential impact could occur. 15 Northwest Information Center. Re: Record search results for the proposed project located at 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. March 10, 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Based on the above, the possibility exists that previously undiscovered historical or archaeological resources, including human remains, could be uncovered during grounddisturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the project could result in a potentially significant impact with respect to causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique historical or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and/or disturbing human remains.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
V-1. If any potentially historic resources, prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of cultural deposits, such as historic privy pits or trash deposits, are found once ground disturbing activities are underway, all work within the vicinity of the find(s) shall cease, the find(s) shall be immediately evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, and the City’s Planning Department shall be notified of the find(s). If the find is determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, as determined by the qualified archeologist, contingency funding and a time allotment to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation shall be made available (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). Work may continue on other parts of the project site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place (Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087).
The requirements of this mitigation measure shall be included via notation on all project improvement plans and building permit plans for review and approval by the City of Pacifica Planning Department.
V-2. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, further excavation or disturbance of the find or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall not occur until compliance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1) and (2) has occurred. The Guidelines specify that in the event of the discovery of human remains other than in a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation at the site or any nearby area suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has been notified to determine if an investigation into the cause of death is required.
If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, then, within 24 hours, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn will notify the most likely descendants who may recommend treatment of the remains and any grave goods. If the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendant or most likely descendant fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after notification by the Native American Heritage Commission, or the landowner or his authorized agent rejects the recommendation by the most likely descendant and mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide a measure acceptable to the landowner, then the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the human remains and grave goods with appropriate dignity at a location on the property not subject to further
11.f
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
disturbances. If human remains are encountered, a copy of the resulting County Coroner report noting any written consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission shall be submitted as proof of compliance to the City of Pacifica Planning Department.
The requirements of this mitigation measure shall be included via notation on all project improvement plans and building permit plans for review and approval by the City of Pacifica Planning Department.
11.f
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
VI. ENERGY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a,b. The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. A description of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, with which the proposed project would be required to comply, as well as discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations are provided below.
California Green Building Standards Code
The 2019 CALGreen Code is a portion of the CBSC which became effective on January 1, 2020.16 The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The CALGreen standards regulate the method of use, properties, performance, types of materials used in construction, alteration repair, improvement and rehabilitation of a structure or improvement to property. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California.
Requirements of the CALGreen Code include, but are not limited to, the following measures:
• Compliance with relevant regulations related to future installation of Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure in residential and non-residential structures; • Indoor water use consumption is reduced through the establishment of maximum fixture water use rates;
• Outdoor landscaping must comply with the California Department of Water Resources’ MWELO, or a local ordinance, whichever is more stringent, to reduce outdoor water use;
• Diversion of 65 percent of construction and demolition waste from landfills; and • Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board.
On November 25, 2019, the City of Pacifica adopted “Reach Codes” which are applicable to new construction projects. New residential buildings, including single-family and multifamily structures three stories or less, are subject to the following requirements and standards:17
16 California Building Standards Commission. California Green Building Standards Code. 2019. 17 City of Pacifica. Notice of Building Code Updates. Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=54723.13&BlobID=16261. Accessed August 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
• Space heating, water heating and clothes dryers must be electric. • Natural gas may be used for cooking appliances and fireplaces, if desired. If natural gas appliances are used, locations must also be electrically pre-wired for future electric appliance installation.
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is a portion of the CBSC, which expands upon energy efficiency measures from the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards resulting in a seven percent reduction in energy consumption from the 2016 standards for residential structures and a 30 percent reduction for commercial structures. Energy reductions relative to previous Building Energy Efficiency Standards would be achieved through various regulations including requirements for the use of high efficacy lighting, improved water heating system efficiency, and high-performance attics and walls. In addition, the Building Energy Efficiency standards require residential buildings that are three stories or less be developed with the solar panels.
Construction Energy Use
Construction of the proposed project would involve on-site energy demand and consumption related to use of oil in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction worker vehicle trips, hauling and materials delivery truck trips, and operation of off-road construction equipment. In addition, diesel-fueled portable generators may be necessary to provide additional electricity demands for temporary on-site lighting, welding, and for supplying energy to areas of the site where energy supply cannot be met via a hookup to the existing electricity grid. Project construction would not involve the use of natural gas appliances or equipment.
All construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the CARB InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation is intended to reduce emissions from in-use, off-road, heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California by imposing limits on idling, requiring all vehicles to be reported to CARB, restricting the addition of older vehicles into fleets, and requiring fleets to reduce emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing exhaust retrofits. The InUse Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation would subsequently help to improve fuel efficiency. Technological innovations and more stringent standards are being researched, such as multi-function equipment, hybrid equipment, or other design changes, which could help to reduce demand on oil and emissions associated with construction.
The CARB has prepared the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan),18 which builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan includes examples of local actions (municipal code changes, zoning changes, policy directions, and mitigation measures) that would support the State’s climate goals. The examples provided include, but are not limited to, enforcing idling time restrictions for construction vehicles, utilizing existing grid power for electric energy rather than operating temporary gasoline/diesel-powered generators, and increasing use of electric and renewable fuel-powered construction equipment. The regulation described above, with which the proposed project must comply, would be consistent with the 18 California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.
11.f
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
intention of the 2017 Scoping Plan and the recommended actions included in Appendix B of the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Based on the above, the temporary increase in energy use occurring during construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in peak or base demands or require additional capacity from local or regional energy supplies. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations related to energy conservation and fuel efficiency, which would help to reduce the temporary increase in demand.
Operational Energy Use
Following implementation of the proposed project, PG&E would provide electricity to the project site. Pacifica also has partnered with Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), a Community Choice Aggregation, which allows the purchase of electricity from renewable sources through PG&E infrastructure.19 Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of residential and commercial uses, requiring electricity for interior and exterior building lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electronic equipment, machinery, refrigeration, appliances, security systems, and more.
Maintenance activities during operations, such as landscape maintenance, would involve the use of electric or gas-powered equipment. In addition to on-site energy use, the proposed project would result in transportation energy use associated with vehicle trips generated by future tenants of the proposed residences as well as employees and customers of the proposed commercial component.
The proposed project would be subject to all relevant provisions of the most recent update of the CBSC, including the CALGreen Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
Adherence to the most recent CALGreen Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards would ensure that the proposed structures would consume energy efficiently through the incorporation of such features as efficient water heating systems, high performance attics and walls, and high efficacy lighting. Required compliance with the CBSC would ensure that the building energy use associated with the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. In addition, electricity supplied to the project by PG&E would comply with the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020 and to 60 percent by 2030. Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources.
In addition, future residents/commercial tenants would have access to electricity generated from renewable sources through PCE. Even if customers choose to opt out of PCE, the electricity supplied by PG&E would comply with the State’s RPS. Furthermore, the proposed project would include the use of solar panels, as required by the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Based on applicant provided information, the project would produce approximately 46 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of on-site renewable energy per day.
Thus, a portion of the energy consumed during project operations would originate from renewable sources.
19 City of South San Francisco. Community Choice Energy. Available at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/citymanager/sustainability/community-choice-energy#:~:text=South%20San%20Francisco%20has%20joined ,instead%20of%20going%20through%20PG%26E. Accessed June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
With regard to transportation energy use, the proposed project would comply with all applicable regulations associated with vehicle efficiency and fuel economy. In addition, as discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the project site is located in an urban area with access to several public transit lines. Transit would provide access to several grocery stores, restaurants, banks, and schools within close proximity to the project site. The site’s access to public transit and proximity to such uses would reduce project-related vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and, consequently, fuel consumption associated with the proposed project, thereby providing for increased pedestrian connectivity with the surrounding area and resulting in reduced vehicle use.
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, a lessthan-significant impact would occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
The following discussion is based on a Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project by GeoForensics, Inc.,
20 a Geotechnical Peer Review performed by ENGEO, Inc.,21 and GeoForensics, Inc.’s Response to Geotechnical Peer Review, dated April 30, 202022 (see Appendix C). The Geotechnical Investigation focused in the northern portion of the project site, because development would not occur in the southern portion of the site, and the proposed offsite improvements are located in an area which has been previously deemed acceptable for development to enable construction of the Pacifica Community Center. 23 a.i-ii. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the greater San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Several major fault zones pass through the Bay Area in a northwest direction which have produced approximately 12 earthquakes per century strong enough to cause structural damage. The faults causing such earthquakes are part of the San Andreas Fault System, a major rift in the earth’s crust that extends for at least 700 miles 20 GeoForensics, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed New Townhouse Complex and Commercial Building.
January 5, 2016. 21 ENGEO, Inc. 570 Crespi Drive Pacifica, California Geotechnical Peer Review. March 2, 2020. 22 GeoForensics, Inc. Crespi Drive Property, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California, Response to Geotechnical Peer Review. April 30, 2020. 23 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
along western California. The San Andreas Fault System includes the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Fault Zones.
The Geotechnical Investigation determined that the lack of mapped active fault traces through the site suggest that a low potential for primary rupture due to fault offset on the property. Nonetheless, given the vicinity of the project site to the San Andreas Fault System, the project site could be subject to strong ground shaking due to a major earthquake in one of the above-listed fault zones.
However, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with the adopted edition of the CBSC requirements in place at the time of building permit application. Structures built according to the seismic design provisions of current building codes should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural damage. Given the project’s adherence to the CBSC requirements, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, or strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. a.iii-iv.
c. The proposed project’s potential effects related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and subsidence/settlement are discussed in detail below.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction most commonly occurs during earthquake shaking in loose, fine sands and silty sands associated with a high ground water table. Based on liquefaction susceptibility mapping by U.S. Geological Survey, the project site is mapped in an area of moderate susceptibility. In addition, the State of California maps the site within a liquefaction zone (Montara Mountain Quadrangle, 2019).
24 However, per the Geotechnical Investigation,
loose, fine, and/or silty sands were not identified in the upper 11 feet of on-site soils.
Although some loose sand deposits exist on the site, such deposits are not watersaturated, and are therefore unlikely to be subject to liquefaction.
Although liquefaction is unlikely to have a significant effect on the subject property, a rigid foundation is required to minimize any potential movements. Therefore, without implementation of mitigation, a potentially significant impact could occur related to damages or collapse due to liquefaction.
Landslides
Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. The project site and the surrounding area are generally level. Therefore, according to the Geotechnical Investigation, the hazard due to large-scale seismically-induced land sliding is relatively low.
24 ENGEO, Inc. 570 Crespi Drive Pacifica, California Geotechnical Peer Review. March 2, 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is associated with terrain near free faces such as excavations, channels, or open bodies of water. Spreading may occur when a weak layer of material, such as a sensitive silt or clay, loses shear strength as a result of ground shaking. Such conditions were not encountered on the proposed building site. Therefore, the hazard due to lateral spreading is considered very low based on the Geotechnical Investigation.
Subsidence/Settlement
Ground subsidence may occur when poorly consolidated soils densify as a result of earthquake shaking. Because the project site is underlain at shallow depths by resistant materials, the hazard due to ground subsidence is considered to be low. According to GeoForensics, based on preliminary civil plans, up to six feet of fill is proposed at the site, which is likely to result in approximately 9.5 inches of total settlement. However, due to the seismicity of the area, the potential exists for subsidence and settlement to occur within the project site.
Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in potential hazards or risks related to landslides or lateral spreading. However, the project would be subject to potential adverse effects related to liquefaction and/or subsidence/settlement. Without implementation of the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation, the project could directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving being located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
VII-1. All grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the Geotechnical Investigation, dated January 2016, and the Response to Geotechnical Peer Review, dated April 30, 2020, prepared for the proposed project by GeoForensics, Inc. are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.
b. Issues related to erosion and degradation of water quality during construction are discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, under question ‘a’. As noted therein, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. d. The Geotechnical Investigation included the testing of soil samples to measure moisture content plasticity, and consolidation. Plasticity Index testing performed on a sample of the site near surface materials, which consisted of organic soils, produced a Plasticity Index result of 210. Typically, a plasticity index of greater than about 30 correlates to a highly expansive soil. However, the testing of highly organic soils has a tendency to produce
11.f
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
unusual test results. Nonetheless, the project site could still consist of potentially expansive soils. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur related to being located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code, thereby creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
VII-2. Implement Mitigation Measure VII-1.
e. Sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the City. The construction or operation of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems is not included as part of the project. Therefore, no impact regarding the capability of soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. f. The City’s General Plan does not identify the presence of any paleontological or unique geological resources within the City limits. As determined by the NWIC, areas surrounding the project site have been disturbed in the past, and the likelihood of discovering paleontological resources is low. Nonetheless, the potential exists that excavation and construction on the project site could encounter previously unknown paleontological resources. Thus, if discovered during ground disturbing activities, the project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
VII-3. In the event that paleontological resources, including individual fossils or assemblages of fossils, are encountered during construction activities all ground disturbing activities shall immediately halt and a qualified paleontologist shall be procured to evaluate the discovery for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The qualified paleontologist shall provide the City of Pacifica Planning Department with a report detailing the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources for review and approval by City Planning staff prior to recommencing construction.
11.f
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
VIII.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion
a,b. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts.
Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. The primary source of GHG emissions for the project would be mobile source emissions. The common unit of measurement for GHG is expressed in terms of annual metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MTCO2e/yr).
The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of BAAQMD. The BAAQMD developed a threshold of significance for project-level GHG emissions in 2009.
The BAAQMD’s approach to developing the threshold was to identify a threshold level of GHG emissions for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation. At the time that the thresholds were developed, the foremost legislation regarding GHG emissions was AB 32, which established an emissions reduction goal of reducing statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.25 The GHG emissions threshold of significance recommended by BAAQMD to determine compliance with AB 32 is 1,100 MTCO2e/yr or 4.6 MTCO2e per service population per year (MTCO2e/SP/yr). If a project generates GHG emissions above the BAAQMD’s adopted threshold level, the project is considered to generate significant GHG emissions and conflict with AB 32.
Since the adoption of BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance, the State legislature has passed AB 197 and Senate Bill (SB) 32, which builds off of AB 32 and establishes a statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Considering the legislative progress that has occurred regarding statewide reduction goals since the 25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update: Proposed Thresholds of Significance. May 2017.
11.f
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
adoption of BAAQMD’s standards, the emissions thresholds presented above would determine whether a proposed project would be in compliance with the 2020 emissions reductions goals of AB 32, but would not necessarily demonstrate whether a project would be in compliance with SB 32. In accordance with the changing legislative environment, the BAAQMD has begun the process of updating the District’s CEQA Guidelines; however, updated thresholds of significance have not yet been adopted. In the absence of BAAQMD-adopted thresholds to assess a project’s compliance with SB 32, this IS/MND considers additional GHG emissions thresholds.
SB 32 requires that by 2030 statewide emissions be reduced by 40 percent beyond the 2020 reduction target set by AB 32. In the absence of adopted thresholds from BAAQMD, the CARB, or the City of Pacifica, this analysis assumes that in order to meet the reduction targets of SB 32, a proposed project would be required to reduce emissions by an additional 40 percent beyond the emissions reductions currently required by BAAQMD for compliance with AB 32. Assuming a 40 percent reduction from current BAAQMD targets, a proposed project would be in compliance with SB 32 if the project’s emissions did not exceed the following thresholds by the year 2030: 660 MTCO2e/yr or 2.6 MTCO2e/SP/yr.
The BAAQMD has informally endorsed this approach to analysis in other recent projects throughout the Bay Area.
26 GHG emissions resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project were modeled with CalEEMod using the same assumptions as discussed in Section III, Air Quality, of this IS/MND. All modeling outputs are included in the Appendix A to this IS/MND.
According to the CalEEMod results, operations of the proposed project would result in total annual GHG emissions of 163.29 MTCO2e/yr, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Unmitigated GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr)
Emission Source GHG Emissions
Area 1.51
Energy 36.40
Mobile 101.15
Solid Waste 21.56
Water 2.66
TOTAL ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS 163.29
BAAQMD Threshold for AB 32 1,100.00
Adjusted Threshold for SB 32 660.00
Exceeds Threshold? NO
Note: Rounding may result in small differences in summation.
Source: CalEEMod, June 2020 (see Appendix A).
Although not presented in the table, based on the modeling results, construction of the proposed project would generate total emissions of 479.35 MTCO2e over the entire construction period. Even if project operational and construction emissions were considered together (163.29 MTCO2e/yr from operations + 479.35 MTCO2e from 26 See, for example, the Creekside/Vineyards at Sand Creek Project EIR, prepared for the City of Antioch. Available at: https://www.antiochca.gov/community-development-department/planning-division/environmental-documents/.
11.f
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
construction), the total GHG emissions of 642.64 MTCO2e/yr would be below the thresholds used to represent compliance with AB 32 and SB 32. Therefore, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would be anticipated to result in significant emissions of GHGs.
In July of 2014, the City of Pacifica adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that is intended to guide reduction of GHG emissions associated with existing operations and future development in the City.
27 The GHG inventory contained in the City’s CAP was derived based on the land use designations and associated densities defined in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the CAP establishes a number of reduction measures, including the use of renewable energy, safe routes to school, and water conservation incentives.
As discussed in Section VI, Energy, of this IS/MND, 46 kWh of energy per day used by the project would be generated by on-site renewable sources, the site is located adjacent to the Crespi Drive & Highway 1 SamTrans bus stop, and indoor water conservation strategies would be applied. Because the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP’s reduction measures and with the project site’s existing General Plan land use designation, the project would be consistent with the GHG inventory contained in the CAP.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs; and impacts would be considered less than significant.
27 City of Pacifica. Climate Action Plan. July 14, 2014.
11.f
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Discussion
a. Due to the limited timeline, construction activities associated with the proposed project are not considered a “routine” use. Nonetheless, hazards related to construction activities and construction materials are discussed further under question ‘b’.
Future operations on the project site could involve the use of common household cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount that could reasonably be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The following discussion provides an analysis of potential hazards related to the proposed construction activities and existing on-site conditions.
Construction Activities
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and the use of other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. Small quantities of potentially toxic substances (e.g., petroleum and other chemicals used to operate and maintain construction equipment) would be used at the project site and transported to and from the site during construction.
11.f
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Existing On-Site Conditions
The project site was previously developed with a single-family residence and a mechanic shop. Although not documented at the project site, activities within the project site may have included the use of fuels, coolants, or other chemicals associated with the mechanic shop. Operations associated with the mechanic shop could result in concentrations of residual chemicals being present in the near surface soil if use or storage of chemicals has occurred.
Upon development of the project, the northern portion of the site would primarily be covered by pavement and other impervious surfaces, as well as by up to six feet of fill, thereby limiting future upset of on-site soils. As a result, exposure to hazardous materials associated with potentially contaminated soils during project operations are not a concern.
Although not anticipated, issues related to contaminated soils could pose a risk to construction workers during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, analysis of on-site soils would be required in order to ensure that any existing soil contaminant concentrations are below the direct exposure Environmental Screening Levels for residential developments, which measures potential hazards to human health.
If hazardous materials/contaminated soils are identified on-site, such soils would be removed from the site and hauled to an appropriate disposal facility. The proposed project would be required to comply with the regulations set forth by 22 CCR Section 66263, Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste, which requires transporters of hazardous materials to ensure that releases of hazardous wastes into the environment would not occur, including the discharge of hazardous wastes into soils, drainage systems, and surface and ground water systems. 22 CCR Section 66263.16 requires that each truck, trailer, semitrailer, vacuum tank, cargo tank, or container used for shipping hazardous waste be designed and constructed, and their contents so limited, that under conditions normally incident to transportation, releases of hazardous wastes to the environment would not occur. Hazardous waste containers are required to be free from leaks and all discharge openings are required to be securely closed during operation. In addition, Section 66263.31 requires transporters of hazardous materials to clean up any hazardous waste discharge that occurs during transportation to the extent that hazardous waste discharge no longer presents a hazard to human health or the environment.
Compliance with the aforementioned State regulations would ensure that, should contaminated soils be identified on-site, the removal of such soils would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials.
Conclusion
Based on the above, although evidence of contamination does not exist, past activities on-site associated with the mechanic shop could have resulted in soil contamination within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
11.f
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
IX-1. Prior to initiation of grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities on the northern portion of the project site, the project applicant shall complete an analysis of on-site soils to determine whether substantial concentrations of soil contaminants are present above the applicable direct exposure Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. If contaminants are not detected above applicable ESLs, then further mitigation is not required. If contaminants are detected above the applicable ESLs, then the soils shall be remediated by off-hauling to a licensed landfill facility. Such remediation activities shall be performed by a licensed hazardous waste contractor (Class A) and contractor personnel that have completed 40-hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training, and overseen by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division. The results of soil sampling and analysis, as well as verification of proper remediation and disposal, shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica Planning Department for review and approval.
c. The project site is located approximately 600 feet, or 0.12-mile, northwest of Cabrillo Elementary School. As discussed above, the proposed operations would not include the use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials associated with cleaning supplies or household materials would be regulated, used, and disposed of according to direction. However, as noted above, previous activities within the project site may have included the use of fuels, coolants, or other chemicals associated with the mechanic shop. Residual chemicals have the potential to be present in the near surface soil. Thus, the project site is located within onequarter mile of a school and, as a result, the project could create hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
IX-2. Implement Mitigation Measure IX-1.
d. According to the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, the project site is not located on or near a site that is included a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.28 Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with respect to being located on a hazardous materials site.
28 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=570+Crespi+Drive%2C+Pacifica%2C+CA. Accessed June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
e. The nearest airport relative to the project site, San Francisco International Airport, is located approximately five miles east of the site. In addition, the project site is located approximately nine miles north of Half Moon Bay Airport. Per the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO Plan), the project site does not lie within designated Safety Compatibility Zones or forecasted noise contours for the airport.29 According to the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the site is not located within an Airport Safety Zone for Half Moon Bay Airport, and, thus, would not be significantly affected by the airport.30 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
f. During operation, the proposed project would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles consistent with California Fire Code requirements and would not interfere with potential evacuation or response routes used by emergency response teams. During construction of the proposed project, all construction equipment would be staged on-site so as to prevent obstruction of local and regional travel routes in the City that could be used as evacuation routes during emergency events. The California Fire Code also requires that all fire service features be installed on the site, including but not limited to fire lanes, before building construction can begin. In addition, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing circulation system in the surrounding area. As noted in Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would provide adequate sight distance at the proposed access points at Crespi Drive and would generate minimal traffic. However, according to the North Country Fire Authority (NCFA), the required access of 26-feet would not be met with the proposed site plan. As a result, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to impairing the implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
IX-3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project shall demonstrate compliance with the 26-foot access road width, or obtain Fire Marshall approval of an Alternative Methods and Materials request by the NCFA to deviate from the 26-foot access road width requirement for the Project. g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS/MND.
As noted therein, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.31 The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Pacifica, is surrounded by existing development, and is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area. While the project site is located among a few trees present on the site, some trees and shrubs would be removed entirely, and the remaining would be maintained according to City procedures. In addition, the project is consistent with the site’s current General 29 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012. 30 San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 1996. 31 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
11.f
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Plan land use designation; thus, buildout of the site with residential and commercial uses and associated wildfire risk has been considered by the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onor offsite; iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Discussion
a,e. During the early stages of construction activities, topsoil would be exposed due to grading of the site. After grading and prior to overlaying the ground surface with impervious surfaces and structures or new landscaping, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which could adversely affect water quality. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction activities where clearing, grading, or excavation results in a land disturbance of one or more acres per the General Construction Permit. Because construction activities on the northern portion of the project site and the off-site improvement area would disturb greater than one acre of land, construction activities would be subject to San Mateo County Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. The San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program provides a list of construction BMPs with which all projects involving construction within the County are required to comply.
32 Should the project applicant fail to implement
best management practices (BMPs), pollutants from construction activities could runoff into local waterways and degrade downstream water quality, particularly during heavy winter rain events.
Following completion of project buildout, the site would be largely covered with impervious surfaces and landscaped areas, and topsoil would no longer be exposed. As such, the 32 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. Construction Best Management Practices. Available at:
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/depts/planning/stormwater_compliance/default.asp. Accessed January 4, 2019.
11.f
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
potential for impacts to water quality would be reduced. In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project would include a series of bioswales on the western and eastern boundaries of the site that would treat stormwater from all on-site impervious areas prior to discharge into the vacant land to the south or into the City’s stormwater drainage system.
While implementation of the above would reduce impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, if the project applicant fails to implement appropriate construction BMPs or implement stormwater requirements, the proposed project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially degrade water quality, or result in a conflict with a water quality control plan. As such, a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
X-1. During construction, the contractor shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, which may include but are not necessarily limited to the following practices, or other BMPs identified in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Construction BMP Handbook and in the City’s Municipal Regional Permit for stormwater discharges:
• Temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) shall be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas;
• Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more) that could contribute sediment to waterways shall be covered or treated with nontoxic soil stabilizers;
• Exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular construction materials that could contribute sediment to waterways shall be enclosed or covered;
• The contractor shall ensure that no earth or organic material will be deposited or placed where such materials may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water; • The following types of materials shall not be rinsed or washed into the streets, shoulder areas, or gutters: concrete, solvents and adhesives, thinners, paints, fuels, sawdust, dirt, gasoline, asphalt and concrete saw slurry, and heavily chlorinated water; and • Grass or other vegetative cover shall be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance.
The applicable BMPs shall be included via notation on the project Improvement Plans for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading, excavation, or building permit.
X-2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the proposed project, the project applicant shall execute and record a Maintenance Agreement addressing future maintenance of the stormwater
11.f
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
treatment measures required to comply with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit. The Maintenance Agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the City Attorney’s Office.
X-3 Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any component of the proposed project, the project applicant shall install all required stormwater treatment measures, and demonstrate full compliance with the stormwater treatment plans prepared for the proposed project. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. b. The proposed project would receive water service from the NCCWD. The NCCWD does not currently rely on groundwater wells for water supply.33 As such, groundwater supplies would not be used to serve the proposed project. Given that only the northern portion of the 1.68-acre project site would be developed, the impervious surfaces created by the project would not substantially interfere with infiltration of stormwater into local groundwater. Furthermore, the project would limit hardscape and use pervious pavement treatments, which would allow for natural infiltration of stormwater. Therefore, the proposed project would not 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, and impacts would be less than significant.
c.i-iii. All municipalities within San Mateo County (and the County itself) are required to develop surface water control standards for new development projects to comply with Provision C.3 of the RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit order No. R2-2015-0049. The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program developed a C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance document for implementing the RWQCB Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit C.3 requirements, known as the C.3 Standards.34 The City of Pacifica has adopted the County C.3 Standards as part of the City’s NPDES General Permit requirements, which require new development and redevelopment projects that create or alter 10,000 or more sf of impervious area to contain and treat the design volume of stormwater runoff from the project site. Given that the proposed project would create more than 10,000 sf of impervious area, the project would be considered a C.3-regulated project.
In accordance with storm water control and water quality standards, the proposed impervious surfaces would drain to vegetated areas and then be conveyed to the rear of the property. In addition to vegetated swales, the site design measures include, bioretention swales, pervious pavements and vegetated swales. It has been determined that the rear open space has a storage capacity of approximately 23,962.8 cubic feet (to elevation 10.0), which exceeds the required 100-year event storage capacity for the proposed improvement.
A Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) has been prepared for the proposed project (see Figure 19). Per the SWMP, the project site and off-site improvement area would be divided into eight drainage management areas (DMAs). Four of the DMAs would direct runoff to a series of bioswales, one would direct runoff to a bioretention basin, and three would be self-treating areas.
33 North Coast County Water District. 20-Year Long-Term Water Master Plan. February 2016. 34 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. June 2016.
11.f
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 19
Stormwater Management Plan
11.f
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Per Section 6-12.207 of the Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Pacifica requires the applicant submit a complete checklist provided by the City to the City Engineer to ensure compliance with the requirements of NPDES Permit No.
CAS612008. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed stormwater system would need to be addressed in a final SWMP to be submitted to the City of Pacifica in accordance with the stormwater management requirements set forth in the City’s Municipal Code. The final design of the proposed drainage system would be reviewed and approved by the City of Pacifica, which would ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with all applicable regional and local standards and requirements with respect to incorporating sufficient permanent stormwater treatment control BMPs.
Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c.iv. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map number 06081C0126F, the project site is located within the Special Flood Hazard Zone AH, which is considered a 100-year flood plain.
The City of Pacifica has established a flood plain elevation of 14.0 feet above mean sea level. Accordingly, all living space within the City must be designed a minimum of one foot above the flood plain elevation (i.e., 15 feet). Per the Boundary and Topographic Survey conducted for the project site, the development area currently has an elevation ranging from 10.69 to 16.55 feet above mean sea level. During the grading process, approximately 2,400 cubic yards of soil would be imported to ensure that all proposed structures have a living space no lower than 15 feet above mean sea level.
In addition, as discussed above, all runoff flowing through the storm drains within the site would divert runoff into bioswales proposed on the western and eastern boundaries of the site, or be directed to a bioretention area in the southeast corner of the project site. As a result, runoff would not accumulate and/or flood on-site or off-site.
Therefore, development of the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement as a result of an earthquake beneath the sea floor. The California Department of Conservation maintains Tsunami Inundation Maps for most populated areas along the California coastline. The maps are created by combining inundation results for a variety of different seismic source events. As such, the maps represent a worse-case scenario. According to the Tsunami Inundation Map for the Montara Mountain Quadrangle, the project site is located in a Tsunami Inundation Area.35 However, the proposed project would not increase exposure of the project site or neighboring sites to impacts from a tsunami.
Additionally, the built portion of the project site would be constructed above the base flood elevation. The project site and surrounding area do not provide storage for hazardous 35 California Department of Conservation. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Montara Mountain Quadrangle. June 15, 2009.
11.f
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
materials. Furthermore, residential and commercial land uses, such as the proposed project, are not typically associated with the routine use of hazardous materials. As a result, even though the project site is located within a Tsunami Inundation Area, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the release of pollutants and/or hazardous materials due to project inundation.
A seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir, whose destructive capacity is not as great as that of tsunamis.
Seiches are known to have occurred during earthquakes, but none have been recorded in the Bay Area. The project site is located approximately 3.2 miles east of the nearest closed body of water, San Andreas Lake, and, thus, would not be expected to be at risk of inundation from seiche.
Based on the discussion above, the proposed project would not pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation caused by flooding, tsunami or seiche, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land use so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. Currently, the project site is bordered by existing single-family residential development to the south, the Pacifica Community Center to the west, Ocean View Senior Apartments and commercial businesses to the north, and an elementary school and commercial businesses to the east. The proposed residences and commercial space would be consistent with the scale, type, and intensity of the existing development in the project area. In addition, the project would not isolate an existing land use. Furthermore, the proposed off-site improvements would consist of minor upgrades that are consistent with the development type and scale of the existing Pacifica Community Center. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. The project site is currently designated Commercial per the City’s General Plan and is zoned M-1. Per the General Plan, mixed residential and commercial uses are allowed when the dwelling units are located above the ground floor in the same building as a commercial use. In addition, the maximum allowable density for the Commercial land use designation is 2,000 sf per unit. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use designation. The proposed project would adhere to all requirements set forth in the City of Pacifica Municipal Code Section 9-4.1101 which regulates development in the C-2 zoning area. San Mateo County CMP LOS consistency is addressed in the Transportation section of this IS/MND. Thus, the design and intended use of the proposed structures would conform with the type and intensity of uses anticipated for the site in the General Plan.
The project would include a Rezoning from M-1 to C-2 and a Zoning Text Amendment to allow residential uses on the ground level and in buildings that do not contain commercial uses in areas zoned C-2. However, the Rezoning and Zoning Text Amendment would not result in any significant environmental impacts on the project site or surrounding area, or conflict with any plans or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect because the types of uses and building forms allowed would remain consistent with the existing C-2 zoning standards.
Because the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation, development of the site with the type and intensity of uses currently proposed has been anticipated by the City. In addition, the General Plan contains several policies with the goal of protecting rare and endangered species, significant trees, and riparian habitats. Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-5 would also serve to protect biological resources. In addition, the General Plan promotes the conservation of water and energy resources. Compliance with the City’s water quality standards, as well as implementation of energy reduction strategies, on-site renewable energy production, and water
11.f
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
conservation strategies would ensure that the project would not conflict with City policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Furthermore, as discussed throughout this IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in any significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the mitigation measures provided herein. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
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?
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?
Discussion
a,b. The State Division of Mines and Geology indicates that the project site does not contain any identified mineral resources of regional or Statewide significance (Mineral Resource Zone 2).36 The adopted General Plan recognizes the existence of mineral resources at the Pacifica Quarry, but does not address mineral resources elsewhere in the City.
Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the adopted General Plan land use designation for the site. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in the loss of any known mineral resources or 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, and no impact would occur. 36 State of California. Division of Mines and Geology. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of the South San Francisco Bay Production—Consumption Region. Published 1996.
11.f
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
XIII.NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. The following discussion is based on an Environmental Noise Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Saxelby Acoustics (see Appendix D). 37 The report analyzed
construction noise and traffic noise level increases at the project site in comparison to the City’s exterior and interior noise level standards.
Sensitive Noise Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others, and, thus, are referred to as sensitive noise receptors. Land uses often associated with sensitive noise receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. In the vicinity of the project site, the nearest sensitive receptors include the existing single-family residences to the south, Pacifica Community Center to the west, and Ocean View Senior Apartments to the north. Additionally, the Cabrillo Elementary School is located 0.12-mile east of the site.
Existing Noise Environment
Per the Environmental Noise Assessment, the existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on SR 1 and Crespi Drive. To determine the existing noise environment at the site, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous 24-hour recordings of the sound levels at one location and short-term measurements at two locations in the project vicinity (see Figure 20).
Table 6 below provides summary of the noise measurement results. The results of the measurements summarized in Table 6, are presented in terms of average hourly noise levels (Leq). The day/night average level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period. All noise level values are in decibels (dB). 37 Saxelby Acoustics LLC. Environmental Noise Assessment, 570 Crespi Drive. September 22, 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Figure 20
Noise Measurement Sites
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
Table 6
Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data
Site Date
Average Measures Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Ldn
Daytime
(7:00AM-10:00PM)
Nighttime
(10:00PM–7:00AM)
Leq L50 Lmax Leq L50 Lmax
LT-1 4/09/20 – 4/10/20 58 54 51 73 51 45 67
ST-1 4/09/20 – 1:05 PM N/A 55 44 93 N/A N/A N/A
ST-2 4/10/20 – 1:21 PM N/A 48 47 58 N/A N/A N/A
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
City Noise Standards
While the City of Pacifica General Plan does not explicitly establish a noise threshold for sensitive receptors, the City staff have historically used the 60 dB threshold as the test of significance when evaluating projects. The City of Pacifica is in the process of updating the General Plan; however, the General Plan Update and associated EIR have not yet been adopted.
Criteria for Short-Term Project-Related Noise Level Increases Because the City has not established a threshold of significance for short-term construction or traffic noise, the City has chosen to use the Caltrans standard of a temporary increase of 12 dBA from existing conditions at the project site to determine whether a significant impact would occur during construction.
Criteria for Long-Term Project-Related Noise Level Increases The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) provides guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. Based on the FICON standards, the project would result in a significant impact under the following circumstances:
• Where existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors are less than 60 dB Ldn, a +5 dB Ldn increase is considered significant;
• Where existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors range from 60 to 65 dB Ldn, a +3 dB Ldn increase is considered significant; and • Where existing ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors are greater than 65 dB Ldn, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase is considered significant.
Construction Noise
During the construction of the proposed project, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would temporarily increase ambient noise levels when in use. Noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how the equipment is operated, and how well the equipment is maintained. In addition, noise exposure at any single point outside the project site would vary depending on the proximity of construction activities to that point. Standard construction equipment, such as graders, backhoes, loaders, and trucks, would be used on-site.
As one increases the distance between equipment, or increases separation of areas with simultaneous construction activity, dispersion and distance attenuation reduce the effects
11.f
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
December 2021
of combining separate noise sources. The noise levels from a source decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dB per every doubling of distance from the noise source.
Based on the analysis included in the Environmental Noise Analysis, the loudest phase of construction would occur during pile driving activities, and would generate an average noise exposure level of 94 dBA Leq at 50 feet. However, as discussed in further detail under question ‘b’ and as required by Mitigation Measure XIII-2, pile driving shall be prohibited during project construction. The next loudest phase would be site preparation and grading activities, which typically make use of compactors, dozers, and pneumatic tools, are anticipated to be the loudest phases of construction, with an average noise exposure of 83 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Saxelby Acoustics modeled the noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors using the SoundPLAN noise model. The results of the construction noise analysis are depicted in Figure 21 without pile driving.
Table 7 shows a summary of the noise prediction results for each phase of project construction as measured from Site LT-1. As shown in Table 7, the proposed project would generate construction noise levels ranging between 31 and 66 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors. Existing ambient noise levels were found to be between 52 and 58 dBA Ldn in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, project construction could result in a maximum increase in noise of up to 9 dBA above existing ambient noise levels. The increase of 9 dBA would not exceed the Caltrans 12 dBA increase criteria.
Additionally, noise associated with construction activities would occur intermittently, and would be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays per Section 8-1.08 of the City’s Municipal Code.
The City of Pacifica would ensure that project construction complies with Section 8-1.08 of the Municipal Code as a condition of project approval. Furthermore, the City of Pacifica Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from the noise standards, provided they take place between the specified hours. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur during project construction.
Operational Noise
The primary source of operational noise associated with the proposed project would be vehicle traffic on the project site and on the local roadway network.
To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels were calculated at sensitive receptors for Baseline, Baseline Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project conditions using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108).
Traffic noise levels were predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. In some locations sensitive receptors may not receive full shielding from noise barriers, or may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance. Project trip generation volumes were provided by the project traffic engineer (RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, 2021), truck usage and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations.
Table 8 and Table 9 summarize traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment in the project area under the aforementioned scenarios.
11.f
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
80 December 2021
Figure 21
Predicted Construction Noise Levels – Without Pile Driving Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
81 December 2021
Table 7
Construction Noise Levels (dBA)
Equipment
Measured Daytime
Noise Level, Ldn
Predicted Construction
Noise Level, Ldn Change
Site Preparation
R1 (Residential) 58 66 +8
R2 (Residential) 58 62 +4
R3 (Residential) 52-58 40 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R5 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R6 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R7 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R8 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
Grading
R1 (Residential) 58 66 +8
R2 (Residential) 58 62 +4
R3 (Residential) 52-58 40 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R5 (Residential) 52-58 60 +8
R6 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R7 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R8 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
Building Construction
R1 (Residential) 58 65 +7
R2 (Residential) 58 61 +3
R3 (Residential) 52-58 39 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R5 (Residential) 52-58 59 +7
R6 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R7 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R8 (Residential) 52-58 57 +5
Paving
R1 (Residential) 58 64 +6
R2 (Residential) 58 60 +2
R3 (Residential) 52-58 38 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R5 (Residential) 52-58 58 +6
R6 (Residential) 52-58 57 +5
R7 (Residential) 52-58 57 +5
R8 (Residential) 52-58 56 +4
Architectural Coating
R1 (Residential) 58 57 +0
R2 (Residential) 58 53 +0
R3 (Residential) 52-58 31 +0
R4 (Residential) 52-58 51 +0
R5 (Residential) 52-58 51 +0
R6 (Residential) 52-58 50 +0
R7 (Residential) 52-58 50 +0
R8 (Residential) 52-58 49 +0
Note: Measurements recorded from Site LT-1.
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
82 December 2021
Table 8
Baseline* Traffic Noise Level and Traffic Noise Level
Increases
Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level
Baseline
Conditions
Baseline Plus
Project Change
SR 1 SR 1 North to
Reina Del Mar Avenue 69.8 69.9 0.0
SR 1 Reina Del Mar Avenue to
Fassler Avenue 72.4 72.5 0.0
SR 1 Fassler Avenue to
Crespi Drive 70.2 70.2 0.0
SR 1 Crespi Drive to
Linda Mar Boulevard 66.3 66.3 0.0
SR 1 Linda Mar Boulevard to
SR 1 South 66.6 66.6 0.0
Reina Del Mar
Avenue
SR 1 to Reina Del
Mar Avenue East 62.3 62.3 0.0
Fassler Avenue SR 1 to
Fassler Avenue East 61.2 61.3 0.1
Crespi Drive East of SR 1 62.8 62.9 0.1
* Refer to Section XVII, Transportation, of this IS/MND for additional information regarding the Baseline traffic conditions.
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
Table 9
Cumulative Traffic Noise Level and Traffic Noise Level
Increases
Roadway Segment
Predicted Exterior Noise Level
Cumulative
Conditions
Cumulative
Plus Project Change
SR 1 SR 1 North to
Reina Del Mar Avenue 69.9 69.9 0.0
SR 1 Reina Del Mar Avenue to
Fassler Avenue 72.5 72.5 0.0
SR 1 Fassler Avenue to
Crespi Drive 70.2 70.3 0.0
SR 1 Crespi Drive to
Linda Mar Boulevard 66.4 66.4 0.0
SR 1 Linda Mar Boulevard to
SR 1 South 66.6 66.6 0.0
Reina Del Mar
Avenue
SR 1 to Reina Del
Mar Avenue East 62.3 62.3 0.0
Fassler Avenue SR 1 to
Fassler Avenue East 61.3 61.3 0.0
Crespi Drive East of SR 1 62.7 62.8 0.1
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
Per the FICON’s criteria for long-term project-related noise level increases, where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise sensitive uses, a +1.5 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. As
11.f
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
83 December 2021
shown in the tables above, the maximum increases in traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 0.1 dBA. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards.
Conclusion
Based on the above, construction and operations of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City’s General Plan and the Municipal Code. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Similar to noise, vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. However, noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception of the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.
Vibration is measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of PPV.
Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table 10, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels that would normally be required to result in damage to structures. As shown in the table, the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec PPV and continuous vibrations of 0.10 in/sec PPV, or greater, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.
The proposed project would only cause elevated vibration levels during construction, as the proposed project would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. Although noise and vibration associated with the construction phases of the project would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity, construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during grading, placement of utilities, and construction of foundations. Table 11 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances.
The most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of pile drivers. If pile driving is not required for project construction, next highest source of groundborne vibration would be the use of vibratory compactors. For the purpose of this analysis, the use of pile drivers and vibratory compactors/rollers are conservatively assumed to be used during construction of the proposed project.
11.f
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
84 December 2021
Table 10
Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
PPV
mm/sec in/sec Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.15 to
0.30 0.006 to
0.019
Threshold of perception;
possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause
damage of any type
2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected
2.5 0.10
Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy
people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings
5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the
levels established for people
standing on bridges and
subjected to relative short
periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk
of “architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered
walls and ceilings. Special types of
finish such as lining of walls,
flexible ceiling treatment, etc.,
would minimize “architectural”
damage
10 to 15 0.4 to 0.6
Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people subjected
to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people
walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural”
damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.
Table 11
Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment
Type of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 50 feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 100 feet
(in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Pile Driving (impact) 0.644 0.228 0.081
Pile Driving (sonic) 0.170 0.060 0.023
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory
Compactor/Roller
0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Saxelby Acoustics LLC, 2021.
Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially pile driving and vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 50 feet, or further, from typical construction activities. Thus, per the vibration levels shown in Table 11, construction vibrations associated with pile driving could exceed the 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold.
Based on the above, construction of the proposed project could expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels associated with the use of pile drivers, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
85 December 2021
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XIII-1. Pile driving shall be prohibited during construction of the proposed project.
Compliance with such shall be ensured by the City of Pacific Planning Division.
c. The nearest airport relative to the project site, San Francisco International Airport, is located approximately five miles east of the site. In addition, the project site is located approximately nine miles north of Half Moon Bay Airport. Per the SFO Plan, the project site does not lie within designated Safety Compatibility Zones or forecasted noise contours for the airport.38 According to the San Mateo County Comprehensive ALUCP, the site is not located within an Airport Safety Zone for Half Moon Bay Airport, and, thus, would not be significantly affected by the airport.39Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public or private airport, the proposed project would not experience elevated noise levels associated with either airport, and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to exposing people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports.
38 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July 2012. 39 San Mateo County. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 1996.
11.f
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
86 December 2021
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include the development of 19 residential units. Using the City of Pacifica average persons per household value of 2.77, the proposed project’s direct population growth from the addition of 19 residences would result in approximately 53 new residents.40 The Department of Finance estimates the 2021 population of Pacifica to be approximately 37,890.
41 The increase in population associated with the proposed project would constitute a 0.14 percent increase in the City’s population. A 0.14 percent increase in population would not be considered substantial growth. The project would not result in any indirect population growth from extension of major infrastructure because, as discussed in Section XIX, Utilities and Service Systems, of this IS/MND, adequate utility infrastructure already exists in the project area to be available to support the proposed project. Finally, considering the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, the population growth that would occur as a result of the project has been previously anticipated by the City and evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the potential growth induced by the proposed commercial components of the project is not likely to be significant, given that the project is consistent with what has been anticipated in the General Plan EIR. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.
b. The project site is currently undeveloped and, thus, would not result in the displacement of any people or housing. In addition, the proposed project would introduce 19 new residential units to the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. 40 City of Pacifica. Pacifica Demographics: 2018. Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/eco_dev/census_facts_2000.asp. Accessed June 2021. 41 California Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E5/. Accessed June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
87 December 2021
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other Public Facilities?
Discussion
a. In 2003, the cities of Daly City, Brisbane, and Pacifica collaborated to form the NCFA through a Joint Powers Authority agreement. The NCFA provides fire protection and medical emergency services in the City of Pacifica as well as the other two communities.
Under the NCFA, fire stations and fire companies are strategically located throughout the three communities, which provide rapid assistance for medical, fire or other hazardous situations. The nearest fire station relative to the project site is the Pacifica Fire Department located at 1100 Linda Mar Boulevard, which is located approximately one mile southeast of the project site. According to the NCFA, each station staffs approximately three personnel with several response vehicles.42 The target response time for emergencies and non-emergencies within City limits is approximately 6 minutes, 59 seconds. However, the NCFA has an actual response time of approximately four minutes.
Due to the close proximity of the station to the project site, response times at the site are expected to be within the targeted response time. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all NCFA standard conditions of approval related to compliance with the California Fire Code and the associated fire prevention and suppression systems including but not limited to fire sprinklers within all buildings.
Because the NCFA would provide adequate fire protection services to proposed project, and because the proposed project would be required to include adequate fire safety design elements, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to the provision of new or physically altered governmental 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 objectives for fire protection services. b. The Pacifica Police Department provides police protection services throughout the City, and the station is located at 2075 Coast Highway. The Pacifica Police Department has 39 sworn officer positions, which equates to approximately one officer per 1,000 residents.43 Using the City of Pacifica average persons per household value of 2.77, the proposed project’s direct population growth from the addition of 19 residences would result in approximately 53 new residents, which is substantially below the threshold of 1,000 new 42 Barry Biermann, Deputy Fire Chief, North County Fire Authority. Personal communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. June 4, 2020. 43 City of Pacifica. Pacifica General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 3.12-2]. March 2014.
11.f
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
88 December 2021
residents which would require the hiring of a new officer.44 Thus, the minor population growth associated with the proposed project would not necessitate the hiring of new officers and/or construction of new or expanded facilities. Additionally, the commercial component of the proposed project is located within existing police patrol routes and service areas and would not necessitate the hiring of additional officers or the construction of new police facilities.
Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees per Chapter 14 of the City’s Municipal Code. Development impact fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction and improvement of public facilities needed as a result of new development. Should any new police facilities or staffing be required as a result of the proposed project, the required payment of development impact fees would ensure that such needs are met.
Based on the above, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to the provision of new or physically altered governmental 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 objectives for police protection services. c. The project site is located within the Pacifica School District and the Jefferson Union High School District (JUHSD). The Pacifica School District addresses increased demand for school services within the District through the use of Bond Funds and school district impact fees charged to new development, and implementation of the Facilities Master Plan.
Because the proposed project would include 19 residential units, the project applicant would be required to pay the appropriate school district impact fees. Specifically, the project would be required to pay $3.79 per square foot, which is split between the Pacifica School District ($2.27 per square foot) and JUHSD ($1.52 per square foot). It should be noted that Proposition 1A/Senate Bill No. 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “[…] legislative or adjudicative act…involving …the planning, use, or development of real property” (Government Code 65996(b)). Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/Senate Bill No. 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” According to the Pacifica School District, the district currently has a capacity of approximately 3,250 students with a current enrollment of 3,142 students. Development of the proposed project would be limited to a total of 19 residences and, thus, would not generate a substantial number of new students to area schools.45 For example, the estimated student yield factor for the Pacifica Union School District is 0.5 students/unit.46 Thus, development of the 19 units would add approximately ten students to the Pacifica School District, which can be accommodated by the current available capacity.
Based on the above, increased demand for school facilities associated with construction of the proposed project would be accommodated by existing schools within the City.
Furthermore, the proposed project and would comply with Proposition 1A/Senate Bill No. 50 through the payment of school impact fees. As such, the proposed project would not 44 City of Pacifica. Pacifica Demographics: 2018. Available at:
https://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/eco_dev/census_facts_2000.asp. Accessed June 2021. 45 Heather Olsen, Superintendent, Pacifica School District. Personal Communication [email] with Clay Gallagher, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. May 27, 2020. 46 Pacifica School District. Level I Developer Fee Study for Pacifica School District. June 14, 2018.
11.f
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
89 December 2021
result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities and a less-than-significant impact would occur with respect to schools in the project area.
d. The proposed project would involve the development of 19 residential dwelling units on
1.68 acres of land. The project would not include any dedicated park areas. The project would be subject to Chapter 19, Park Facilities Impact Fee, of the City’s Municipal Code, which states the following:
This chapter is enacted to require the dedication of such funds and/or lands to offset the impact on the need for parks, recreational facilities, and open space created by new residential development which does not require a tentative subdivision or parcel map… The fees due under this chapter are collected for the acquisition of lands and the construction of improvements and facilities for which the City has established an account, appropriated funds and adopted a proposed acquisition and construction schedule, and shall be determined and become due and payable to the City at the time of the issuance of a building permit for a residential dwelling unit, single-family residence or mobile home space, or for the addition to such of one or more bedrooms.
Therefore, given that the proposed project would be required to pay the applicable park in-lieu fees in order to ensure that sufficient funding is available for Citywide park development, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact on parks. e. The City contains two public libraries: the Pacifica-Sharp Park Library and the PacificaSanchez Library. The libraries constitute two branches of the San Mateo County Library system. Per a 1999 Joint Powers Authority agreement, the City is responsible for funding maintenance of the two libraries. The proposed project includes a total of 19 residential dwelling units. Due to the relatively small project size, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for library services, and a less-than-significant impact would occur in regard to libraries or other public facilities.
11.f
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
90 December 2021
XVI. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a,b. The proposed project would include development of 19 residential units and commercial space. Recreational or park facilities are not proposed as part of the proposed project. As discussed in Section XV, Public Services, of this IS/MND, the project would be subject to payment of a Park Facilities Impact Fee pursuant to Chapter 19 of the City’s Municipal Code. Payment of the Park Facilities Impact Fee would provide funding for future parkland or recreational facilities. Park development in the future would be subject to projectspecific review under CEQA. Furthermore, due to the relatively small project size, and the proximity to existing recreational facilities in the City, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
11.f
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
91 December 2021
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Mitigation measures typically took the form of capacityincreasing improvements, which often had their own environmental impacts (e.g., to biological resources). Depending on circumstances, and an agency’s tolerance for congestion (e.g., as reflected in its general plan), LOS D, E, or F often represented significant environmental effects. In 2013, however, the State Legislature passed legislation with the intention of replacing LOS in most instances as a basis for environmental analysis under CEQA. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The office may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.” Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 21099 further provides that “[u]pon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to [CEQA], except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (Italics added.)
Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.
11.f
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
92 December 2021
Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.”47 Please refer to question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT.
Consistency with San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) LOS Policies
Although intersection LOS can no longer be used for identifying significant transportation impacts under CEQA (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3), as of July 1, 2020, LOS is still used to determine conformity with an adopted general plan or congestion management plan if that General Plan has adopted LOS policies. To measure and describe the operation of the roadway network, a grading system called LOS is commonly used. The LOS grading system qualitatively characterizes motor vehicle traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours associated with varying levels of traffic, generally referred to as congestion. These levels range from LOS A, which indicates free-flow vehicular traffic conditions with little or no delay experienced by motorists, to LOS F which indicates congested conditions where vehicle flow exceeds the designed vehicular capacity of the roadway. When LOS falls below a particular level (the grade lowers, i.e., from LOS D to LOS F), a road segment or intersection can be considered deficient and in need of expansion to increase capacity or other improvement(s) to increase or improve traffic flow, such as adjustments to intersection signalization.
The San Mateo County CMP has set LOS standards for major roadways and intersections within the County. SR 1 through Pacifica is a designated CMP roadway, and the designated standard for SR 1 through Pacifica is LOS E. While none of the four study intersections is a designated CMP intersection, the CMP standards for intersections on designated CMP roadways is appropriate. As a result, any signalized study intersection operating worse than LOS E would be considered inconsistent with the CMP standard.
Study Intersections
The following discussion is based primarily on a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project by RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering (RKH) (see Appendix E).
48 The TIA evaluated the potential transportation impacts that could result from the proposed project, short- and long-term multi-modal circulation needs where relevant to site access and/or project impacts. As part of the TIA, RKH evaluated transportation conditions at the following four study intersections (see Figure 22):
1. SR 1 and Linda Mar Boulevard/San Pedro Avenue;
2. SR 1 and Crespi Drive;
3. SR 1 and Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue; and
4. SR 1 and Reina Del Mar Avenue.
47 Subdivision (b)(2) of Section 15064.3 (“transportation projects”) provides that “[t]ransportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.” 48 RKH Civil and Transportation, Inc. Traffic Impact Analysis, 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, California. November 8, 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
93 December 2021
Figure 22
Study Intersection Locations
Source: RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, November 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
94 December 2021
RKH evaluated transportation conditions at all four of the study intersections using methodologies contained in the 2010 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Using the PTV VISTRO 7.00-06 network modeling program, a traffic network model was created to analyze the streets and intersections in the project area.
Study Scenarios
Conditions at each intersection were analyzed under the following scenarios:
• Background Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Projects) –The Background Conditions scenario consists of existing traffic plus traffic to be generated by those developments that are anticipated to be built and occupied by the time the project is ready for occupancy. The approved projects that were assumed to be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed project include the following:
1. A seven-unit residential condominium development at 1335 Adobe Drive; and
2. A 24-unit residential condominium development at 801 Fassler Avenue. • Project Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Proposed Project) – The Project Conditions scenario consists of project trips estimated based on the proposed land use and are then added to Background Conditions traffic. • Cumulative Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Plus Future Development) – Cumulative traffic is traffic that is expected to be present within five years of completion of the proposed project. The Cumulative Conditions scenario consists of existing traffic plus trips from approved projects plus trips from future potential development projects within the study area. The following eight projects have been identified that could occur subsequent to the development of the proposed project within the near-term cumulative scenario:
1. Hillside Meadows, up to 18 units of multifamily housing development on a new street off of Higgins Way in the Linda Mar area, plus 18 Accessory Dwelling Units;
2. Harmony @ One, up to four unit of single family homes in a detached development;
3. Oddstad Way, up to three single family detached dwelling units on;
4. Up to 125 units residential development at the end of Higgins Way;
5. 1300 Danmann Avenue, up to six residential units plus 3,050 sf of commercial space;
6. Pacifica Highlands, up to 54 units of single family detached homes off of Cabrillo Highway;
7. Cabrillo Highway, a mixed-use development with up to 89 multifamily dwelling units and 1,760 sf of commercial space; and
8. 930 Oddstad Blvd, up to 70 units of workforce housing development • Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Similar to Cumulative Conditions, but with the net new trips that would be generated by the proposed project.
Project Trip Generation and Distribution
Project vehicle trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition). The AM peak hour is generally
11.f
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
95 December 2021
between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour is generally between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Based on the ITE rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate 20 AM peak hour and 26 PM peak hour trips (see Table 12). It is noted that implementation of the proposed off-site improvements would not affect vehicle trip generation.
Table 12
Project Vehicle Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE
Code) Size
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Multi-Family Housing 19 units 2 8 10 8 5 13
Medical/Dental Office1 3.165 ksf 8 2 10 4 9 13
Total 10 10 20 12 14 26 1 Highest probable use given size and location.
Source: RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, November 2021.
Project Conditions
Table 13 summarizes the peak hour LOS at study intersections under Background Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Projects) and Project Conditions (Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Proposed Project). As shown in the table, all four of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under Project Conditions. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the County’s CMP thresholds for intersection operations.
Table 13
Project Conditions Intersection LOS
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Background
Conditions
Project
Conditions
V/C1 Delay2 LOS V/C1 Delay2 LOS
1. SR 1 and Linda Mar Boulevard/
San Pedro Road
AM 0.662 29.1 C 0.663 29.1 C
PM 0.670 28.4 C 0.671 28.4 C
2. SR 1 and Crespi Drive AM 0.441 16.1 B 0.442 16.5 B
PM 0.640 11.9 B 0.645 12.0 B
3. SR 1 and Fassler Avenue/
Rockaway Beach Avenue
AM 0.939 68.4 E 0.941 69.5 E
PM 0.890 48.7 D 0.890 49.2 D
4. SR 1 and Reina Del Mar
Avenue
AM 0.914 39.7 D 0.917 40.1 D
PM 0.836 23.4 C 0.837 23.6 C 1 V/C is the volume to capacity ratio. 2 Delay: Average control delay in seconds per vehicle.
Source: RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, November 2021.
As shown in the table, all four of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under Project Conditions. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the County CMP for intersection operations and, thus, would not create a conflict with an adopted plan related to the City’s circulation system.
Cumulative Conditions
The Cumulative Conditions scenario for purposes of this study are projects that are expected to be completed within five years of development of the proposed project. Table
11.f
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
96 December 2021
14 summarizes the peak hour LOS at study intersections under Cumulative Conditions and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
Table 14
Cumulative Conditions Intersection LOS
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Cumulative
Conditions
Cumulative Plus
Project Conditions
V/C1 Delay2 LOS V/C1 Delay2 LOS
1. SR 1 and Linda Mar Boulevard/
San Pedro Road
AM 0.686 30.5 C 0.687 30.6 C
PM 0.710 30.3 C 0.711 30.4 C
2. SR 1 and Crespi Drive AM 0.649 17.0 B 0.651 17.3 B
PM 0.667 12.2 B 0.673 12.2 B
3. SR 1 and Fassler Avenue/
Rockaway Beach Avenue
AM 0.960 78.0 E 0.962 78.7 E
PM 0.906 55.3 E 0.907 55.9 E
4. SR 1 and Reina Del Mar Avenue AM 0.943 46.4 D 0.945 46.8 D PM 0.855 26.2 C 0.856 26.4 C 1 V/C is the volume to capacity ratio. 2 Delay: Average control delay in seconds per vehicle.
Source: RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, November 2021.
As shown in the table, all four of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s standards for intersection operations and, thus, would not create a conflict with an adopted plan related to the City’s circulation system.
Consistency with Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facility Plans The proposed project’s potential impacts related to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities are discussed below.
Pedestrian Facilities
Within the vicinity of the project site, continuous sidewalks are provided on both sides of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road. In addition, a pedestrian crosswalk is provided at the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road, near the northeast corner of the project site. With implementation of the proposed project, sidewalks along the project site frontage would be retained.
Considering the above, the proposed project would not result in the creation of a conflict with any adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing pedestrian facilities and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to pedestrian facilities.
Bicycle Facilities
Currently, an existing Class I bike lane runs parallel to SR 1, west of the project site. An existing Class II bike lane is also provided along Linda Mar Boulevard, south of the project site. The City of Pacifica Draft General Plan and the City of Pacifica Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan propose that several new bicycle facilities be constructed in the future. Future residents of the proposed project would have convenient access to the existing bicycle facilities in the project area, including the bike lane near SR 1. The project would not conflict with any existing or planned bicycle facilities.
11.f
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
97 December 2021
Considering the above, the proposed project would not result in the creation of a conflict with any adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing bicycle facilities and a less-than-significant impact would occur related to bicycle facilities.
Transit Facilities
Regional access is provided by SamTrans, which runs lines 110, 112, and 118 with a stop on Crespi Drive, west of the project site frontage, a stop further east near the intersection of Crespi Drive and Roberts Road, and another stop near the intersection of SR 1 and Crespi Drive. Regional access to the Bay Area is provided by SamTrans as well as BART, with several connections in the vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would include connection of the driveway and access points to the pedestrian sidewalk along Crespi Drive.
Therefore, future residents, workers, and patrons at the proposed project would have access to transit services. The project would not conflict with any existing or planned transit facilities. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transit service and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. While changes to driving conditions that increase intersection delay are an important consideration for traffic operations and management, the method of analysis does not fully describe environmental effects associated with fuel consumption, emissions, and public health. Section 15064.3(3) changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impact to drivers to measuring the impact of driving.
The County of San Mateo has released an interdepartmental memorandum regarding the Interim Change to Vehicle Miles Traveled as Metric to Determine Transportation Impacts under CEQA Analysis. As noted therein, local-serving retail projects under 50,000 sf, such as the commercial portion of the proposed project, are considered to result in a less-thansignificant impact related to VMT. The threshold of significance for residential projects is 15 percent below the County baseline, or 11.56 VMT per capita. The VMT anticipated for the residential component of the project is presented in Table 15 below.
Table 15
Proposed Project Residential VMT
Project Component Total Annual VMT1 VMT per Capita per day2 Residential 194,425 10.05
Countywide Threshold 11.56
Exceeds Threshold? NO 1 CalEEMod, 2021 (Appendix A). 2 Using the City of Pacifica average persons per household value of 2.77, the proposed project would introduce approximately 53 new residents (City of Pacifica, 2021). 194,425 annual VMT / 365 days / 53 residents = 10.05 VMT per capita per day.
11.f
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
98 December 2021
As shown in the table, the project is expected to generate VMT per capita below the County’s threshold.
Furthermore, the project site is located near to existing transit stops on Crespi Drive and SR 1 and is serviced by SamTrans, which circulates the entire San Francisco Peninsula including service to BART and Caltrain stations. Additionally, the site is located within close proximity to Cabrillo Elementary School and a variety of commercial uses, including a supermarket, bank, mail center, restaurants, located approximately 0.5-miles south of the site. The site’s proximity to such uses would reduce VMT associated with the proposed residences. In addition, the implementation of mixed-use projects, such as the proposed project, has been shown to reduce VMT due to internal trip capture.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. Per the TIA, oncoming traffic travelling in both directions on Crespi Drive would have a clear line of sight to vehicles exiting the driveway well beyond the minimum stopping distance. Similarly, vehicles exiting the driveway would have a clear line of sight to vehicles travelling on Crespi Drive well beyond the minimum stopping distance. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, and the project would result in a less-than-significant impact. d. Sufficient emergency access is determined by factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations. Vehicles would have access to and from the project site by way of a proposed driveway off of Crespi Drive. In addition, a new west to east driveway off Crespi Drive would be constructed along the northern boundary of the Pacifica Community Center. Egress from the site would be provided by way of a connection to the existing driveway from the Pacifica Community Center and then back onto Crespi Drive. However, according to the NCFA, the required access of 26-feet would not be met with the proposed site plan. Therefore, without adjustments to the existing driveway or approval of Alternative Methods and Materials request, emergency access to the project site would not be considered adequate, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XVII-1. Implement Mitigation Measure IX-3.
11.f
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
99 December 2021
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
Discussion
a,b. Based on a search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File, the project site could contain Tribal Cultural Resources.49 As a result, information request letters were sent to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Batista and the Ohlone Indian Tribe; however, responses from the tribes have not been received.
Furthermore, the City of Pacifica has not received requests to be notified of development projects (pursuant to AB 52) from any Native American tribes in the project region and, thus, AB 52 project notification letters were not distributed by the City. The City, as a lead agency, has not identified any tribal resources on the site. However, because the proposed project includes a request for a GPA, in compliance with SB 18, the City of Pacifica sent SB 18 notification letters to all the tribes included on the NAHC’s tribal consultation list for San Mateo County. The letters were distributed on November 19, 2021. The City will continue to engage in discussions with local tribes as necessary throughout the CEQA process.
Considering the construction activity associated with the Pacifica Community Center and the demolition of the previously existing on-site structure, portions of the project site that would be developed as part of the project, including the off-site improvement area, has been previously and recently disturbed. Additionally, recent construction of an equalization basin in the southern portion of 540 Crespi Drive included substantial excavation, and tribal cultural resources were not identified during such ground disturbance. Due to the previous disturbance of the site, the probability of finding tribal cultural resources on the surface of the site is unlikely.
However, the possibility exists that previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources could be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, and a potentially significant impact could occur.
49 Native American Heritage Commission. 570 Crespi Drive Project, San Mateo County. February 28, 2020.
11.f
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
100
December 2021
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
XVIII-1. Implement Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2.
11.f
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
101
December 2021
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Discussion
a-c. Electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, water, and sanitary sewer services would be provided by way of new connections to existing infrastructure in the immediate project area. Electricity and natural gas services for the proposed project would be provided by PG&E. Brief discussions of water, sewer service, stormwater drainage, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications that would serve the proposed project are included below.
Implementation of the proposed off-site improvements would not affect utility demand.
Water
As noted in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS/MND, the proposed project would receive water service from the NCCWD. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the NCCWD is estimated to have sufficient water supplies to serve the City through the year 2045 to accommodate buildout of the General Plan.50 Considering the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site, the increase in water demand associated with buildout of the project site was accounted
Furthermore, the UWMP estimates a daily usage of 65 gallons per capita per day (GPCD).
As such, the residential component of the proposed project is anticipated to generate a demand of approximately 3,069 gallons per day, or 1.12 million gallons per year (MGY) (53 residents X 57.9 GPCD = 3,069 GPD). Because the tenants of the commercial component of the proposed project are unknown, the number of daily staff and customers which would generate increased demand for potable water is unknown at this time.
Nonetheless, for the purposes of this analysis, an average of 20 employees is conservatively assumed. Thus, the commercial component of the proposed project is 50 North Coast County Water District. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.
11.f
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
102
December 2021
anticipated to generate a demand of approximately 1,158 gallons per day, or 0.42 million MGY (20 staff X 57.9 GPCD = 1,158 GPD). In total, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a water demand of approximately 1.54 MGY.
Per Table 7-4 of the UWMP, in the year 2045, the NCCWD anticipates an excess water supply of 583 MGY, which is enough to accommodate the 1.54 MGY increase associated with development of the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or the expansion of existing facilities, as sufficient water supplies are available to adequately serve the proposed project.
Wastewater
Sewer utilities for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Pacifica. The City’s wastewater is treated at the Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant (CCWRP), located approximately 1.28 miles north of the project site. The CCWRP’s average discharge is 1.9 million gallons per day (mgd) to Calera Creek, which flows about 0.5-miles through constructed wetlands and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.51 The CCWRP was designed to handle an annual average daily wastewater flow of 4.0 mgd, and is anticipated to have enough capacity to accommodate buildout of the General Plan. Considering the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation for the site, the wastewater generation associated with the proposed project has been generally anticipated for the project site and considered in wastewater infrastructure planning efforts.
Furthermore, residents throughout the City are required to pay an annual sewer charge based on water consumption rates for each unit, per Chapter 6 of the City Municipal Code.
Such charges would help to ensure that adequate capacity is available to serve the project’s demand for services.
Given the remaining available capacity within the wastewater facility, the proposed project would not result in inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the existing commitments.
Stormwater
As discussed above in Section X, Hydrology, of this IS/MND, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project would be treated on-site prior to discharge into the vacant land to the south or into the City’s stormwater drainage system. Implementation of Mitigation Measure X-1 would ensure that BMPs are implemented during construction activities to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, because the site has been anticipated for development by the City’s General Plan, impacts to stormwater systems resulting from development of the site have been anticipated by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
Other Utilities
Electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications utilities would be provided by way of connections to existing infrastructure located within the immediate project vicinity. PG&E would provide electricity and natural gas services to the project site. The proposed project 51 Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region. City of Pacifica, Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant and Wastewater Collection System, Pacifica, San Mateo County. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_info/agendas/2017/April/7_ssr.pdf. April 12, 2017.
11.f
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
103
December 2021
would not require major upgrades to, or extension of, existing infrastructure. Thus, impacts to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Therefore, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Furthermore, adequate wastewater capacity would be available to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the CCWRP’s existing commitments. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
d,e. Solid waste collection services for the City are provided by Recology of the Coast, a Division of Recology. Services provided to the City by Recology include curbside pick-up of garbage, recyclables, and green waste. Solid waste from within the City of Pacific is disposed of at the Ox Mountain Landfill. Per CalRecycle, the Ox Mountain Landfill has 22,180,000 cubic yards of remaining available capacity, or approximately 36.7 percent of the facility’s maximum permitted capacity of 60,500,000 cubic yards. 52 The Ox Mountain
Landfill is planned for closure in 2034. After the Ox Mountain Landfill ceases operations, either the Los Trancos Canyon Landfill will undergo expansion, or the Apanolio Canyon Landfill will be opened for fill.53
The proposed project would generate solid waste associated with construction activities and project operations. Construction debris would be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and standards. All material exported during site preparation and grading activities would be off-hauled to the Ox Mountain Landfill.
Considering the relatively small size of the proposed project, as compared to the development of the entire Ox Mountain Landfill service area, sufficient capacity would exist to accommodate the solid waste disposal needs generate by the proposed project.
Based on the above, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs and would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
52 CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed June 2021. 53 City of San Mateo. General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report [pg 4.11-38]. July 2009.
11.f
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
104
December 2021
XX. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a-d. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.54 The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Pacifica, is surrounded by existing development, and is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area. While the project site is located among a few trees present on the site, some trees and shrubs would be removed entirely, and the remaining would be maintained according to City procedures. In addition, the project is consistent with the site’s current General Plan land use designation; thus, buildout of the site with residential and commercial uses and associated wildfire risk has been previously considered by the City. Thus, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
54 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Mateo County, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 24, 2008.
11.f
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
105
December 2021
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, while the potential exists for nesting and migratory birds protected by the MBTA to occur on-site, Mitigation Measures IV-1 would ensure that impacts to special-status species would be less-thansignificant. While unlikely, the project could result in the uncovering of previously undiscovered archeological and/or paleontological resources during project construction.
However, the proposed project would comply with applicable State and local regulations related to unintentional discovery, as discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND. Given compliance with Mitigation Measures V-1 and V-2, impacts to cultural resources would be less-than-significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with the potential to: 1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. While the project could result a potentially significant impact related to degradation of the quality of the environment or reduction of a special-status species, implementation of the mitigation discussed throughout this IS/MND would ensure that the project would result in a less-than-significant impact. b. The proposed project involves the development of an undeveloped lot in a developed area of the City of Pacifica. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site and, as such, the proposed project was included in the cumulative analysis of the City buildout per the City’s General Plan. The project would not conflict with long-term environmental goals of the General Plan. Applicable policies from the General Plan would be implemented as part of the proposed project, as well as the project-specific mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, to ensure any potential impacts of the proposed project would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. As demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation would be reduced to less-than-significant
11.f
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Initial Study
106
December 2021
levels with implementation of project-specific mitigation measures and compliance with applicable General Plan policies and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. In addition, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. As such, a less-thansignificant impact would occur. c. The proposed project could expose humans to hazards relating to water quality during construction and operation. In addition, the project could potentially expose neighboring noise-sensitive receptors to excess noise levels during construction. However, this IS/MND includes mitigation measures that would reduce any potential impacts to lessthan-significant levels. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with all applicable building standards and codes to ensure adequate safety is provided for the future residents of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to environmental effects that could cause adverse effects on human beings would be less than significant.
11.f
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Appendix A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Results
11.f
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Crespi Drive Project
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Based on site plan.
Construction Phase - Phasing adjusted per applicant-provided information.
Grading -
Energy Use - Title 24 energy intensities adjusted to reflect compliance with the 2019 CBSC.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Project would improve pedestrian network connectivity, transit accessbility, and diversity of land uses.
Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation - Water conservation strategy applied to reflect compliance with MWELO and CalGreen Code.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Medical Office Building 3.16 1000sqft 0.07 3,162.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.57 1000sqft 0.13 5,566.00 0
Parking Lot 15.00 Space 0.13 6,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 3.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 3,692.00 9
Condo/Townhouse 16.00 Dwelling Unit 0.72 36.84 46
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.983 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Operational Off-Road Equipment -
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 360.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 360.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/8/2021 11/29/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2022 5/15/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/29/2022 12/27/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/12/2022 5/30/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/9/2021 12/28/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2022 11/30/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/30/2022 1/12/2022 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 2,400.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 5,570.00 5,566.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,000.00 3,692.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,000.00 36.84
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.19 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 0.72
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 203.98 203.983 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0520 0.5575 0.3335 7.3000e0040.1536 0.0250 0.1787 0.0730 0.0231 0.0961 0.0000 65.3952 65.3952 0.0170 1.6300e00366.3048 2022 0.2816 1.8388 1.9666 3.5700e0030.0280 0.0873 0.1153 7.5200e0030.0847 0.0922 0.0000 298.7973 298.7973 0.0441 2.1600e003300.5417 2023 0.1000 0.6424 0.7309 1.3300e0030.0105 0.0286 0.0391 2.8300e0030.0277 0.0306 0.0000 111.8881 111.8881 0.0159 7.6000e004112.5122 Maximum 0.2816 1.8388 1.9666 3.5700e0030.1536 0.0873 0.1787 0.0730 0.0847 0.0961 0.0000 298.7973 298.7973 0.0441 2.1600e003300.5417 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0520 0.5575 0.3335 7.3000e0040.1536 0.0250 0.1787 0.0730 0.0231 0.0961 0.0000 65.3951 65.3951 0.0170 1.6300e00366.3047 2022 0.2816 1.8388 1.9666 3.5700e0030.0280 0.0873 0.1153 7.5200e0030.0847 0.0922 0.0000 298.7969 298.7969 0.0441 2.1600e003300.5414 2023 0.1000 0.6424 0.7309 1.3300e0030.0105 0.0286 0.0391 2.8300e0030.0277 0.0306 0.0000 111.8879 111.8879 0.0159 7.6000e004112.5121 Maximum 0.2816 1.8388 1.9666 3.5700e0030.1536 0.0873 0.1787 0.0730 0.0847 0.0961 0.0000 298.7969 298.7969 0.0441 2.1600e003300.5414 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 10-1-2021 12-31-2021 0.6093 0.6093
2 1-1-2022 3-31-2022 0.5189 0.5189
3 4-1-2022 6-30-2022 0.5314 0.5314
4 7-1-2022 9-30-2022 0.5373 0.5373
5 10-1-2022 12-31-2022 0.5380 0.5380
6 1-1-2023 3-31-2023 0.4911 0.4911
7 4-1-2023 6-30-2023 0.2546 0.2546
Highest 0.6093 0.6093
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0803 2.6400e0030.2017 1.3000e0049.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0030.8662 0.5867 1.4529 1.6100e0036.0000e0051.5102 Energy 2.4400e0030.0210 0.0102 1.3000e0041.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0030.0000 36.1402 36.1402 2.4000e0036.8000e00436.4023 Mobile 0.0945 0.1050 0.8578 1.7100e0030.1778 1.2900e0030.1791 0.0475 1.2000e0030.0487 0.0000 159.7421 159.7421 0.0111 7.9700e003162.3966 Offroad 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.7022 0.0000 8.7022 0.5143 0.0000 21.5594 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5185 1.0955 1.6140 0.0534 1.2800e0033.3311 Total 0.1772 0.1287 1.0697 1.9700e0030.1778 0.0124 0.1902 0.0475 0.0123 0.0598 10.0870 197.5644 207.6514 0.5829 9.9900e003225.1995 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0803 2.6400e0030.2017 1.3000e0049.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0030.8662 0.5867 1.4529 1.6100e0036.0000e0051.5102 Energy 2.4400e0030.0210 0.0102 1.3000e0041.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0030.0000 36.1359 36.1359 2.4000e0036.8000e00436.3980 Mobile 0.0788 0.0746 0.6132 1.0600e0030.1081 8.5000e0040.1090 0.0289 7.9000e0040.0297 0.0000 99.2271 99.2271 8.6900e0035.7300e003101.1528 Offroad 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.7022 0.0000 8.7022 0.5143 0.0000 21.5594 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4148 0.8764 1.2912 0.0428 1.0200e0032.6649 Total 0.1616 0.0983 0.8250 1.3200e0030.1081 0.0120 0.1201 0.0289 0.0119 0.0408 9.9833 136.8261 146.8093 0.5697 7.4900e003163.2851 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/1/2021 10/4/2021 5 2 2 Grading Grading 10/5/2021 11/29/2021 5 40
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
8.81 23.62 22.87 32.99 39.21 3.55 36.89 39.21 3.33 31.83 1.03 30.74 29.30 2.25 25.03 27.49 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/28/2021 5/15/2023 5 360 4 Paving Paving 11/30/2021 12/27/2021 5 20
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/12/2022 5/30/2023 5 360 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 7,551; Residential Outdoor: 2,517; Non-Residential Indoor: 4,743; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,581; Striped Parking Area:
694 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.88
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 6.2700e0030.0000 6.2700e0033.0000e0030.0000 3.0000e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5600e0030.0174 7.5600e0032.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 1.5118 1.5118 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5241 Total 1.5600e0030.0174 7.5600e0032.0000e0056.2700e0037.7000e0047.0400e0033.0000e0037.0000e0043.7000e0030.0000 1.5118 1.5118 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5241 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 300.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 20.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 4.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0522 0.0522 0.0000 0.0000 0.0527 Total 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0522 0.0522 0.0000 0.0000 0.0527 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 6.2700e0030.0000 6.2700e0033.0000e0030.0000 3.0000e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5600e0030.0174 7.5600e0032.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.0000e0047.0000e0040.0000 1.5118 1.5118 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5241 Total 1.5600e0030.0174 7.5600e0032.0000e0056.2700e0037.7000e0047.0400e0033.0000e0037.0000e0043.7000e0030.0000 1.5118 1.5118 4.9000e0040.0000 1.5241 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0522 0.0522 0.0000 0.0000 0.0527 Total 2.0000e0052.0000e0052.1000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0522 0.0522 0.0000 0.0000 0.0527 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1418 0.0000 0.1418 0.0685 0.0000 0.0685 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0365 0.4043 0.1952 4.1000e0040.0183 0.0183 0.0169 0.0169 0.0000 36.2078 36.2078 0.0117 0.0000 36.5005 Total 0.0365 0.4043 0.1952 4.1000e0040.1418 0.0183 0.1601 0.0685 0.0169 0.0854 0.0000 36.2078 36.2078 0.0117 0.0000 36.5005 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0500e0030.0297 6.3800e0031.0000e0042.5400e0034.0000e0042.9400e0037.0000e0043.8000e0041.0800e0030.0000 9.6440 9.6440 3.2000e0041.5300e00310.1071 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e0044.5000e0045.1900e0031.0000e0051.5800e0031.0000e0051.5900e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.3000e0040.0000 1.3052 1.3052 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3181 Total 1.6400e0030.0302 0.0116 1.1000e0044.1200e0034.1000e0044.5300e0031.1200e0033.9000e0041.5100e0030.0000 10.9491 10.9491 3.6000e0041.5700e00311.4252 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1418 0.0000 0.1418 0.0685 0.0000 0.0685 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0365 0.4043 0.1952 4.1000e0040.0183 0.0183 0.0169 0.0169 0.0000 36.2077 36.2077 0.0117 0.0000 36.5005 Total 0.0365 0.4043 0.1952 4.1000e0040.1418 0.0183 0.1601 0.0685 0.0169 0.0854 0.0000 36.2077 36.2077 0.0117 0.0000 36.5005 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0500e0030.0297 6.3800e0031.0000e0042.5400e0034.0000e0042.9400e0037.0000e0043.8000e0041.0800e0030.0000 9.6440 9.6440 3.2000e0041.5300e00310.1071 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e0044.5000e0045.1900e0031.0000e0051.5800e0031.0000e0051.5900e0034.2000e0041.0000e0054.3000e0040.0000 1.3052 1.3052 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3181 Total 1.6400e0030.0302 0.0116 1.1000e0044.1200e0034.1000e0044.5300e0031.1200e0033.9000e0041.5100e0030.0000 10.9491 10.9491 3.6000e0041.5700e00311.4252 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.6200e0030.0273 0.0258 4.0000e0051.3700e0031.3700e0031.3200e0031.3200e0030.0000 3.6310 3.6310 6.5000e0040.0000 3.6472 Total 3.6200e0030.0273 0.0258 4.0000e0051.3700e0031.3700e0031.3200e0031.3200e0030.0000 3.6310 3.6310 6.5000e0040.0000 3.6472 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e0055.3000e0041.5000e0040.0000 5.0000e0051.0000e0056.0000e0052.0000e0051.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.1689 0.1689 0.0000 3.0000e0050.1765 Worker 1.2000e0049.0000e0051.0400e0030.0000 3.2000e0040.0000 3.2000e0048.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.2610 0.2610 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2636 Total 1.5000e0046.2000e0041.1900e0030.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0053.8000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0051.1000e0040.0000 0.4299 0.4299 1.0000e0054.0000e0050.4401 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.6200e0030.0273 0.0258 4.0000e0051.3700e0031.3700e0031.3200e0031.3200e0030.0000 3.6310 3.6310 6.5000e0040.0000 3.6472 Total 3.6200e0030.0273 0.0258 4.0000e0051.3700e0031.3700e0031.3200e0031.3200e0030.0000 3.6310 3.6310 6.5000e0040.0000 3.6472 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 3.0000e0055.3000e0041.5000e0040.0000 5.0000e0051.0000e0056.0000e0052.0000e0051.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.1689 0.1689 0.0000 3.0000e0050.1765 Worker 1.2000e0049.0000e0051.0400e0030.0000 3.2000e0040.0000 3.2000e0048.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.2610 0.2610 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2636 Total 1.5000e0046.2000e0041.1900e0030.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0053.8000e0041.0000e0041.0000e0051.1000e0040.0000 0.4299 0.4299 1.0000e0054.0000e0050.4401 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2143 1.6254 1.6544 2.8700e0030.0766 0.0766 0.0740 0.0740 0.0000 236.0500 236.0500 0.0411 0.0000 237.0778 Total 0.2143 1.6254 1.6544 2.8700e0030.0766 0.0766 0.0740 0.0740 0.0000 236.0500 236.0500 0.0411 0.0000 237.0778 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1100e0030.0291 8.4600e0031.1000e0043.4100e0033.0000e0043.7100e0039.9000e0042.9000e0041.2700e0030.0000 10.7095 10.7095 2.3000e0041.5900e00311.1886 Worker 7.1400e0035.1400e0030.0622 1.8000e0040.0205 1.1000e0040.0207 5.4700e0031.0000e0045.5700e0030.0000 16.5234 16.5234 5.1000e0044.8000e00416.6783 Total 8.2500e0030.0342 0.0706 2.9000e0040.0240 4.1000e0040.0244 6.4600e0033.9000e0046.8400e0030.0000 27.2329 27.2329 7.4000e0042.0700e00327.8668 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2143 1.6254 1.6544 2.8700e0030.0766 0.0766 0.0740 0.0740 0.0000 236.0497 236.0497 0.0411 0.0000 237.0775 Total 0.2143 1.6254 1.6544 2.8700e0030.0766 0.0766 0.0740 0.0740 0.0000 236.0497 236.0497 0.0411 0.0000 237.0775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1100e0030.0291 8.4600e0031.1000e0043.4100e0033.0000e0043.7100e0039.9000e0042.9000e0041.2700e0030.0000 10.7095 10.7095 2.3000e0041.5900e00311.1886 Worker 7.1400e0035.1400e0030.0622 1.8000e0040.0205 1.1000e0040.0207 5.4700e0031.0000e0045.5700e0030.0000 16.5234 16.5234 5.1000e0044.8000e00416.6783 Total 8.2500e0030.0342 0.0706 2.9000e0040.0240 4.1000e0040.0244 6.4600e0033.9000e0046.8400e0030.0000 27.2329 27.2329 7.4000e0042.0700e00327.8668 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0731 0.5621 0.6053 1.0600e0030.0247 0.0247 0.0239 0.0239 0.0000 87.1676 87.1676 0.0148 0.0000 87.5376 Total 0.0731 0.5621 0.6053 1.0600e0030.0247 0.0247 0.0239 0.0239 0.0000 87.1676 87.1676 0.0148 0.0000 87.5376 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e0048.5400e0032.6700e0034.0000e0051.2600e0035.0000e0051.3100e0033.6000e0045.0000e0054.1000e0040.0000 3.7900 3.7900 8.0000e0055.6000e0043.9590 Worker 2.4600e0031.6800e0030.0213 6.0000e0057.5900e0034.0000e0057.6200e0032.0200e0034.0000e0052.0500e0030.0000 5.9453 5.9453 1.7000e0041.6000e0045.9982 Total 2.6600e0030.0102 0.0240 1.0000e0048.8500e0039.0000e0058.9300e0032.3800e0039.0000e0052.4600e0030.0000 9.7353 9.7353 2.5000e0047.2000e0049.9572 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0731 0.5621 0.6053 1.0600e0030.0247 0.0247 0.0239 0.0239 0.0000 87.1675 87.1675 0.0148 0.0000 87.5375 Total 0.0731 0.5621 0.6053 1.0600e0030.0247 0.0247 0.0239 0.0239 0.0000 87.1675 87.1675 0.0148 0.0000 87.5375 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.0000e0048.5400e0032.6700e0034.0000e0051.2600e0035.0000e0051.3100e0033.6000e0045.0000e0054.1000e0040.0000 3.7900 3.7900 8.0000e0055.6000e0043.9590 Worker 2.4600e0031.6800e0030.0213 6.0000e0057.5900e0034.0000e0057.6200e0032.0200e0034.0000e0052.0500e0030.0000 5.9453 5.9453 1.7000e0041.6000e0045.9982 Total 2.6600e0030.0102 0.0240 1.0000e0048.8500e0039.0000e0058.9300e0032.3800e0039.0000e0052.4600e0030.0000 9.7353 9.7353 2.5000e0047.2000e0049.9572 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.7400e0030.0774 0.0886 1.4000e0044.1500e0034.1500e0033.8300e0033.8300e0030.0000 11.7650 11.7650 3.7300e0030.0000 11.8582 Paving 3.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.0800e0030.0774 0.0886 1.4000e0044.1500e0034.1500e0033.8300e0033.8300e0030.0000 11.7650 11.7650 3.7300e0030.0000 11.8582 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e0042.9000e0043.3800e0031.0000e0051.0300e0031.0000e0051.0300e0032.7000e0041.0000e0052.8000e0040.0000 0.8484 0.8484 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.8568 Total 3.8000e0042.9000e0043.3800e0031.0000e0051.0300e0031.0000e0051.0300e0032.7000e0041.0000e0052.8000e0040.0000 0.8484 0.8484 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.8568 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.7400e0030.0774 0.0886 1.4000e0044.1500e0034.1500e0033.8300e0033.8300e0030.0000 11.7650 11.7650 3.7300e0030.0000 11.8582 Paving 3.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.0800e0030.0774 0.0886 1.4000e0044.1500e0034.1500e0033.8300e0033.8300e0030.0000 11.7650 11.7650 3.7300e0030.0000 11.8582 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e0042.9000e0043.3800e0031.0000e0051.0300e0031.0000e0051.0300e0032.7000e0041.0000e0052.8000e0040.0000 0.8484 0.8484 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.8568 Total 3.8000e0042.9000e0043.3800e0031.0000e0051.0300e0031.0000e0051.0300e0032.7000e0041.0000e0052.8000e0040.0000 0.8484 0.8484 3.0000e0053.0000e0050.8568 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0317 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0259 0.1782 0.2294 3.8000e0040.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 32.2987 32.2987 2.1000e0030.0000 32.3512 Total 0.0576 0.1782 0.2294 3.8000e0040.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 32.2987 32.2987 2.1000e0030.0000 32.3512 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3900e0031.0000e0030.0121 3.0000e0054.0000e0032.0000e0054.0200e0031.0600e0032.0000e0051.0800e0030.0000 3.2157 3.2157 1.0000e0049.0000e0053.2458 Total 1.3900e0031.0000e0030.0121 3.0000e0054.0000e0032.0000e0054.0200e0031.0600e0032.0000e0051.0800e0030.0000 3.2157 3.2157 1.0000e0049.0000e0053.2458 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0317 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0259 0.1782 0.2294 3.8000e0040.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 32.2986 32.2986 2.1000e0030.0000 32.3512 Total 0.0576 0.1782 0.2294 3.8000e0040.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0103 0.0000 32.2986 32.2986 2.1000e0030.0000 32.3512 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3900e0031.0000e0030.0121 3.0000e0054.0000e0032.0000e0054.0200e0031.0600e0032.0000e0051.0800e0030.0000 3.2157 3.2157 1.0000e0049.0000e0053.2458 Total 1.3900e0031.0000e0030.0121 3.0000e0054.0000e0032.0000e0054.0200e0031.0600e0032.0000e0051.0800e0030.0000 3.2157 3.2157 1.0000e0049.0000e0053.2458 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0134 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0103 0.0697 0.0969 1.6000e0043.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0030.0000 13.6599 13.6599 8.2000e0040.0000 13.6803 Total 0.0237 0.0697 0.0969 1.6000e0043.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0030.0000 13.6599 13.6599 8.2000e0040.0000 13.6803 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.5000e0043.7000e0044.7500e0031.0000e0051.6900e0031.0000e0051.7000e0034.5000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3253 1.3253 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3371 Total 5.5000e0043.7000e0044.7500e0031.0000e0051.6900e0031.0000e0051.7000e0034.5000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3253 1.3253 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3371 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0134 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0103 0.0697 0.0969 1.6000e0043.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0030.0000 13.6599 13.6599 8.2000e0040.0000 13.6803 Total 0.0237 0.0697 0.0969 1.6000e0043.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0033.7900e0030.0000 13.6599 13.6599 8.2000e0040.0000 13.6803 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.5000e0043.7000e0044.7500e0031.0000e0051.6900e0031.0000e0051.7000e0034.5000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3253 1.3253 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3371 Total 5.5000e0043.7000e0044.7500e0031.0000e0051.6900e0031.0000e0051.7000e0034.5000e0041.0000e0054.6000e0040.0000 1.3253 1.3253 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.3371 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Diversity
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0788 0.0746 0.6132 1.0600e0030.1081 8.5000e0040.1090 0.0289 7.9000e0040.0297 0.0000 99.2271 99.2271 8.6900e0035.7300e003101.1528 Unmitigated 0.0945 0.1050 0.8578 1.7100e0030.1778 1.2900e0030.1791 0.0475 1.2000e0030.0487 0.0000 159.7421 159.7421 0.0111 7.9700e003162.3966
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 21.96 24.42 18.84 50,501 30,699
Condo/Townhouse 117.12 130.24 100.48 269,340 163,726
Medical Office Building 110.04 27.10 4.49 162,669 98,883 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 249.12 181.76 123.81 482,510 293,308
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Medical Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 29.60 51.40 19.00 60 30 10 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Condo/Townhouse 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Medical Office Building 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Parking Lot 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.9957 11.9957 1.9400e0032.4000e00412.1143 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.9999 11.9999 1.9400e0032.4000e00412.1186 NaturalGas
Mitigated
2.4400e0030.0210 0.0102 1.3000e0041.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0030.0000 24.1402 24.1402 4.6000e0044.4000e00424.2837 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
2.4400e0030.0210 0.0102 1.3000e0041.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0030.0000 24.1402 24.1402 4.6000e0044.4000e00424.2837
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
58547.9 3.2000e0042.7000e0031.1500e0032.0000e0052.2000e0042.2000e0042.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 3.1243 3.1243 6.0000e0056.0000e0053.1429 Condo/Townhous
e
333270 1.8000e0030.0154 6.5300e0031.0000e0041.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0030.0000 17.7846 17.7846 3.4000e0043.3000e00417.8903 Medical Office
Building
60552.3 3.3000e0042.9700e0032.4900e0032.0000e0052.3000e0042.3000e0042.3000e0042.3000e0040.0000 3.2313 3.2313 6.0000e0056.0000e0053.2505 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.4500e0030.0210 0.0102 1.4000e0041.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0030.0000 24.1402 24.1402 4.6000e0044.5000e00424.2837 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
58547.9 3.2000e0042.7000e0031.1500e0032.0000e0052.2000e0042.2000e0042.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 3.1243 3.1243 6.0000e0056.0000e0053.1429 Condo/Townhous
e
333270 1.8000e0030.0154 6.5300e0031.0000e0041.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0030.0000 17.7846 17.7846 3.4000e0043.3000e00417.8903 Medical Office
Building
60552.3 3.3000e0042.9700e0032.4900e0032.0000e0052.3000e0042.3000e0042.3000e0042.3000e0040.0000 3.2313 3.2313 6.0000e0056.0000e0053.2505 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 2.4500e0030.0210 0.0102 1.4000e0041.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0031.6900e0030.0000 24.1402 24.1402 4.6000e0044.5000e00424.2837 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
12098.3 1.1194 1.8000e0042.0000e0051.1305
Condo/Townhous
e
77425 7.1638 1.1600e0031.4000e0047.2346
Medical Office
Building
38070.5 3.5225 5.7000e0047.0000e0053.5573
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 2100 0.1943 3.0000e0050.0000 0.1962
Total 11.9999 1.9400e0032.3000e00412.1186
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
12089.1 1.1185 1.8000e0042.0000e0051.1296
Condo/Townhous
e
77415.8 7.1629 1.1600e0031.4000e0047.2337
Medical Office
Building
38061.3 3.5216 5.7000e0047.0000e0053.5565
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
-9.2 -0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 -0.0009
Parking Lot 2090.8 0.1935 3.0000e0050.0000 0.1954
Total 11.9957 1.9400e0032.3000e00412.1143
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0803 2.6400e0030.2017 1.3000e0049.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0030.8662 0.5867 1.4529 1.6100e0036.0000e0051.5102 Unmitigated 0.0803 2.6400e0030.2017 1.3000e0049.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0030.8662 0.5867 1.4529 1.6100e0036.0000e0051.5102
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
4.5100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.0277 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0438 1.0100e0030.0604 1.2000e0048.6300e0038.6300e0038.6300e0038.6300e0030.8662 0.3558 1.2220 1.3900e0036.0000e0051.2737 Landscaping 4.2700e0031.6300e0030.1413 1.0000e0057.8000e0047.8000e0047.8000e0047.8000e0040.0000 0.2309 0.2309 2.2000e0040.0000 0.2364 Total 0.0803 2.6400e0030.2017 1.3000e0049.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0030.8662 0.5867 1.4529 1.6100e0036.0000e0051.5102 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Apply Water Conservation Strategy
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
4.5100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.0277 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0438 1.0100e0030.0604 1.2000e0048.6300e0038.6300e0038.6300e0038.6300e0030.8662 0.3558 1.2220 1.3900e0036.0000e0051.2737 Landscaping 4.2700e0031.6300e0030.1413 1.0000e0057.8000e0047.8000e0047.8000e0047.8000e0040.0000 0.2309 0.2309 2.2000e0040.0000 0.2364 Total 0.0803 2.6400e0030.2017 1.3000e0049.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0039.4100e0030.8662 0.5867 1.4529 1.6100e0036.0000e0051.5102 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.2912 0.0428 1.0200e0032.6649
Unmitigated 1.6140 0.0534 1.2800e0033.3311
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
0.195462 /
0.123226
0.1998 6.3900e0031.5000e0040.4052
Condo/Townhous
e
1.04246 /
0.657206
1.0655 0.0341 8.2000e0042.1610
Medical Office
Building
0.396519 /
0.0755273
0.3488 0.0130 3.1000e0040.7649
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.6140 0.0534 1.2800e0033.3311
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
0.15637 /
0.0985809
0.1598 5.1100e0031.2000e0040.3242
Condo/Townhous
e
0.833972 /
0.525765
0.8524 0.0273 6.5000e0041.7288
Medical Office
Building
0.317215 /
0.0604219
0.2790 0.0104 2.5000e0040.6119
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.2912 0.0428 1.0200e0032.6649
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 8.7022 0.5143 0.0000 21.5594
Unmitigated 8.7022 0.5143 0.0000 21.5594
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.38 0.2801 0.0166 0.0000 0.6940
Condo/Townhous
e
7.36 1.4940 0.0883 0.0000 3.7014
Medical Office
Building
34.13 6.9281 0.4094 0.0000 17.1640
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 8.7022 0.5143 0.0000 21.5594
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
1.38 0.2801 0.0166 0.0000 0.6940
Condo/Townhous
e
7.36 1.4940 0.0883 0.0000 3.7014
Medical Office
Building
34.13 6.9281 0.4094 0.0000 17.1640
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 8.7022 0.5143 0.0000 21.5594
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Excavators 0 8.00 260 158 0.38 Diesel
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
11.0 Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type tons/yr MT/yr
Excavators 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 UnMitigated/Mitigated
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 37 Date: 6/11/2021 9:31 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Crespi Drive Project
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Based on site plan.
Construction Phase - Phasing adjusted per applicant-provided information.
Grading -
Energy Use - Title 24 energy intensities adjusted to reflect compliance with the 2019 CBSC.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Project would improve pedestrian network connectivity, transit accessbility, and diversity of land uses.
Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation - Water conservation strategy applied to reflect compliance with MWELO and CalGreen Code.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Medical Office Building 3.16 1000sqft 0.07 3,162.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.57 1000sqft 0.13 5,566.00 0
Parking Lot 15.00 Space 0.13 6,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 3.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 3,692.00 9
Condo/Townhouse 16.00 Dwelling Unit 0.72 36.84 46
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.983 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Operational Off-Road Equipment -
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 360.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 360.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/8/2021 11/29/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2022 5/15/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/29/2022 12/27/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/12/2022 5/30/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/9/2021 12/28/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2022 11/30/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/30/2022 1/12/2022 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 2,400.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 5,570.00 5,566.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,000.00 3,692.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,000.00 36.84
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.19 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 0.72
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 203.98 203.983 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 1.9113 21.6675 13.5387 0.0262 7.3027 0.9363 8.2389 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,603.939 7 2,603.939
7 0.6655 0.0862 2,646.257
6 2022 2.1825 14.1694 15.2246 0.0276 0.2243 0.6739 0.8982 0.0601 0.6537 0.7138 0.0000 2,553.320 4 2,553.320
4 0.3738 0.0179 2,568.008
6 2023 2.0350 13.2222 15.0507 0.0275 0.2243 0.5873 0.8116 0.0601 0.5695 0.6296 0.0000 2,545.142 9 2,545.142
9 0.3630 0.0170 2,559.285
4 Maximum 2.1825 21.6675 15.2246 0.0276 7.3027 0.9363 8.2389 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,603.939 7 2,603.939
7 0.6655 0.0862 2,646.257
6 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 1.9113 21.6675 13.5387 0.0262 7.3027 0.9363 8.2389 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,603.939 7 2,603.939
7 0.6655 0.0862 2,646.257
6 2022 2.1825 14.1694 15.2246 0.0276 0.2243 0.6739 0.8982 0.0601 0.6537 0.7138 0.0000 2,553.320 4 2,553.320
4 0.3738 0.0179 2,568.008
6 2023 2.0350 13.2222 15.0507 0.0275 0.2243 0.5873 0.8116 0.0601 0.5695 0.6296 0.0000 2,545.142 9 2,545.142
9 0.3630 0.0170 2,559.285
4 Maximum 2.1825 21.6675 15.2246 0.0276 7.3027 0.9363 8.2389 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,603.939 7 2,603.939
7 0.6655 0.0862 2,646.257
6 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Energy 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749 Mobile 0.6898 0.6300 5.5711 0.0118 1.2051 8.4400e0031.2135 0.3209 7.8600e0030.3288 1,210.518 8 1,210.518
8 0.0745 0.0544 1,228.588
8 Offroad 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.7409 0.9360 17.5209 0.0325 1.2051 1.4920 2.6970 0.3209 1.4914 1.8123 159.0461 1,429.566 7 1,588.612
8 0.2977 0.0683 1,616.408
6 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Energy 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749 Mobile 0.5900 0.4475 3.8628 7.3100e0030.7325 5.5500e0030.7381 0.1951 5.1600e0030.2003 750.9661 750.9661 0.0570 0.0390 764.0002 Offroad 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.6410 0.7536 15.8126 0.0280 0.7325 1.4891 2.2216 0.1951 1.4887 1.6838 159.0461 970.0140 1,129.060 1 0.2802 0.0529 1,151.820
1 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/1/2021 10/4/2021 5 2 2 Grading Grading 10/5/2021 11/29/2021 5 40
3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/28/2021 5/15/2023 5 360 4 Paving Paving 11/30/2021 12/27/2021 5 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
1.14 19.49 9.75 13.76 39.21 0.19 17.63 39.21 0.18 7.09 0.00 32.15 28.93 5.88 22.59 28.74 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/12/2022 5/30/2023 5 360 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 7,551; Residential Outdoor: 2,517; Non-Residential Indoor: 4,743; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,581; Striped Parking Area:
694 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.88
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2662 0.0000 6.2662 3.0041 0.0000 3.0041 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 0.7654 0.7654 0.7041 0.7041 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Total 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 6.2662 0.7654 7.0316 3.0041 0.7041 3.7082 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 300.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 20.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 4.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0251 0.0159 0.2253 6.1000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 61.4647 61.4647 1.8200e0031.6200e00361.9923 Total 0.0251 0.0159 0.2253 6.1000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 61.4647 61.4647 1.8200e0031.6200e00361.9923 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2662 0.0000 6.2662 3.0041 0.0000 3.0041 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 0.7654 0.7654 0.7041 0.7041 0.0000 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Total 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 6.2662 0.7654 7.0316 3.0041 0.7041 3.7082 0.0000 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0251 0.0159 0.2253 6.1000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 61.4647 61.4647 1.8200e0031.6200e00361.9923 Total 0.0251 0.0159 0.2253 6.1000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 61.4647 61.4647 1.8200e0031.6200e00361.9923 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0894 0.0000 7.0894 3.4258 0.0000 3.4258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 7.0894 0.9158 8.0051 3.4258 0.8425 4.2683 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0528 1.4341 0.3170 4.8900e0030.1312 0.0201 0.1512 0.0360 0.0192 0.0551 531.4974 531.4974 0.0178 0.0842 557.0202 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0314 0.0199 0.2817 7.6000e0040.0822 4.5000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.2000e0040.0222 76.8308 76.8308 2.2700e0032.0200e00377.4904 Total 0.0843 1.4540 0.5987 5.6500e0030.2133 0.0205 0.2338 0.0577 0.0196 0.0773 608.3282 608.3282 0.0201 0.0862 634.5106 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0894 0.0000 7.0894 3.4258 0.0000 3.4258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 7.0894 0.9158 8.0051 3.4258 0.8425 4.2683 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0528 1.4341 0.3170 4.8900e0030.1312 0.0201 0.1512 0.0360 0.0192 0.0551 531.4974 531.4974 0.0178 0.0842 557.0202 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0314 0.0199 0.2817 7.6000e0040.0822 4.5000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.2000e0040.0222 76.8308 76.8308 2.2700e0032.0200e00377.4904 Total 0.0843 1.4540 0.5987 5.6500e0030.2133 0.0205 0.2338 0.0577 0.0196 0.0773 608.3282 608.3282 0.0201 0.0862 634.5106 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Total 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0134 0.2573 0.0761 8.7000e0040.0271 4.2900e0030.0314 7.8000e0034.1100e0030.0119 93.0924 93.0924 2.1900e0030.0138 97.2628 Worker 0.0628 0.0399 0.5633 1.5200e0030.1643 9.1000e0040.1652 0.0436 8.4000e0040.0444 153.6617 153.6617 4.5400e0034.0500e003154.9808 Total 0.0762 0.2972 0.6394 2.3900e0030.1914 5.2000e0030.1966 0.0514 4.9500e0030.0563 246.7540 246.7540 6.7300e0030.0179 252.2435 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 0.0000 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Total 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 0.0000 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0134 0.2573 0.0761 8.7000e0040.0271 4.2900e0030.0314 7.8000e0034.1100e0030.0119 93.0924 93.0924 2.1900e0030.0138 97.2628 Worker 0.0628 0.0399 0.5633 1.5200e0030.1643 9.1000e0040.1652 0.0436 8.4000e0040.0444 153.6617 153.6617 4.5400e0034.0500e003154.9808 Total 0.0762 0.2972 0.6394 2.3900e0030.1914 5.2000e0030.1966 0.0514 4.9500e0030.0563 246.7540 246.7540 6.7300e0030.0179 252.2435 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.6300e0030.2158 0.0641 8.5000e0040.0271 2.3000e0030.0294 7.8000e0032.2000e0030.0100 90.7943 90.7943 1.9800e0030.0135 94.8529 Worker 0.0582 0.0351 0.5170 1.4700e0030.1643 8.6000e0040.1652 0.0436 7.9000e0040.0444 149.6126 149.6126 4.0800e0033.7300e003150.8263 Total 0.0668 0.2509 0.5811 2.3200e0030.1914 3.1600e0030.1945 0.0514 2.9900e0030.0544 240.4069 240.4069 6.0600e0030.0172 245.6791 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.6300e0030.2158 0.0641 8.5000e0040.0271 2.3000e0030.0294 7.8000e0032.2000e0030.0100 90.7943 90.7943 1.9800e0030.0135 94.8529 Worker 0.0582 0.0351 0.5170 1.4700e0030.1643 8.6000e0040.1652 0.0436 7.9000e0040.0444 149.6126 149.6126 4.0800e0033.7300e003150.8263 Total 0.0668 0.2509 0.5811 2.3200e0030.1914 3.1600e0030.1945 0.0514 2.9900e0030.0544 240.4069 240.4069 6.0600e0030.0172 245.6791 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.3500e0030.1716 0.0548 8.1000e0040.0271 1.0400e0030.0281 7.8000e0039.9000e0048.7900e00386.9844 86.9844 1.7800e0030.0129 90.8609 Worker 0.0541 0.0311 0.4781 1.4200e0030.1643 8.1000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.5000e0040.0443 145.7690 145.7690 3.6800e0033.4600e003146.8915 Total 0.0585 0.2026 0.5329 2.2300e0030.1914 1.8500e0030.1932 0.0514 1.7400e0030.0531 232.7534 232.7534 5.4600e0030.0163 237.7524 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.3500e0030.1716 0.0548 8.1000e0040.0271 1.0400e0030.0281 7.8000e0039.9000e0048.7900e00386.9844 86.9844 1.7800e0030.0129 90.8609 Worker 0.0541 0.0311 0.4781 1.4200e0030.1643 8.1000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.5000e0040.0443 145.7690 145.7690 3.6800e0033.4600e003146.8915 Total 0.0585 0.2026 0.5329 2.2300e0030.1914 1.8500e0030.1932 0.0514 1.7400e0030.0531 232.7534 232.7534 5.4600e0030.0163 237.7524 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7739 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Paving 0.0341 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8079 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0409 0.0259 0.3661 9.9000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 99.8801 99.8801 2.9500e0032.6300e003100.7375 Total 0.0409 0.0259 0.3661 9.9000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 99.8801 99.8801 2.9500e0032.6300e003100.7375 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7739 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 0.0000 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Paving 0.0341 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8079 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 0.0000 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0409 0.0259 0.3661 9.9000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 99.8801 99.8801 2.9500e0032.6300e003100.7375 Total 0.0409 0.0259 0.3661 9.9000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 99.8801 99.8801 2.9500e0032.6300e003100.7375 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.4554 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0116 7.0200e0030.1034 2.9000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00329.9225 29.9225 8.2000e0047.5000e00430.1653 Total 0.0116 7.0200e0030.1034 2.9000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00329.9225 29.9225 8.2000e0047.5000e00430.1653 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.4554 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0116 7.0200e0030.1034 2.9000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00329.9225 29.9225 8.2000e0047.5000e00430.1653 Total 0.0116 7.0200e0030.1034 2.9000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00329.9225 29.9225 8.2000e0047.5000e00430.1653 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.4425 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0108 6.2100e0030.0956 2.8000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00329.1538 29.1538 7.4000e0046.9000e00429.3783 Total 0.0108 6.2100e0030.0956 2.8000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00329.1538 29.1538 7.4000e0046.9000e00429.3783 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.4425 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0108 6.2100e0030.0956 2.8000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00329.1538 29.1538 7.4000e0046.9000e00429.3783 Total 0.0108 6.2100e0030.0956 2.8000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00329.1538 29.1538 7.4000e0046.9000e00429.3783 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Diversity
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.5900 0.4475 3.8628 7.3100e0030.7325 5.5500e0030.7381 0.1951 5.1600e0030.2003 750.9661 750.9661 0.0570 0.0390 764.0002 Unmitigated 0.6898 0.6300 5.5711 0.0118 1.2051 8.4400e0031.2135 0.3209 7.8600e0030.3288 1,210.518 8 1,210.518
8 0.0745 0.0544 1,228.588
8 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 21.96 24.42 18.84 50,501 30,699
Condo/Townhouse 117.12 130.24 100.48 269,340 163,726
Medical Office Building 110.04 27.10 4.49 162,669 98,883 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 249.12 181.76 123.81 482,510 293,308
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Medical Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 29.60 51.40 19.00 60 30 10 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Condo/Townhouse 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Medical Office Building 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Parking Lot 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
160.405 1.7300e0030.0148 6.2900e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e00318.8712 18.8712 3.6000e0043.5000e00418.9834 Condo/Townhous
e
913.07 9.8500e0030.0842 0.0358 5.4000e0046.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e003107.4200 107.4200 2.0600e0031.9700e003108.0583 Medical Office
Building
165.897 1.7900e0030.0163 0.0137 1.0000e0041.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e00319.5173 19.5173 3.7000e0043.6000e00419.6332 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6800e003146.6749 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
0.160405 1.7300e0030.0148 6.2900e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e00318.8712 18.8712 3.6000e0043.5000e00418.9834 Condo/Townhous
e
0.91307 9.8500e0030.0842 0.0358 5.4000e0046.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e003107.4200 107.4200 2.0600e0031.9700e003108.0583 Medical Office
Building
0.165897 1.7900e0030.0163 0.0137 1.0000e0041.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e00319.5173 19.5173 3.7000e0043.6000e00419.6332 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6800e003146.6749 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Unmitigated 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0247 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1516 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 7.8139 0.1727 10.3238 0.0199 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 159.0461 70.4118 229.4578 0.2177 0.0112 238.2491 Landscaping 0.0475 0.0181 1.5703 8.0000e0058.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0032.8277 2.8277 2.7300e0032.8959 Total 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Apply Water Conservation Strategy
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0247 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1516 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 7.8139 0.1727 10.3238 0.0199 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 159.0461 70.4118 229.4578 0.2177 0.0112 238.2491 Landscaping 0.0475 0.0181 1.5703 8.0000e0058.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0032.8277 2.8277 2.7300e0032.8959 Total 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Excavators 0 8.00 260 158 0.38 Diesel
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
11.0 Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type lb/day lb/day
Excavators 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 UnMitigated/Mitigated
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Summer EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Crespi Drive Project
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Based on site plan.
Construction Phase - Phasing adjusted per applicant-provided information.
Grading -
Energy Use - Title 24 energy intensities adjusted to reflect compliance with the 2019 CBSC.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Project would improve pedestrian network connectivity, transit accessbility, and diversity of land uses.
Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation - Water conservation strategy applied to reflect compliance with MWELO and CalGreen Code.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Medical Office Building 3.16 1000sqft 0.07 3,162.00 0
Other Asphalt Surfaces 5.57 1000sqft 0.13 5,566.00 0
Parking Lot 15.00 Space 0.13 6,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 3.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 3,692.00 9
Condo/Townhouse 16.00 Dwelling Unit 0.72 36.84 46
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Operational Year 2023
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.983 CH4 Intensity 0.033
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Operational Off-Road Equipment -
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 360.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 360.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/8/2021 11/29/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/15/2022 5/15/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/29/2022 12/27/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/12/2022 5/30/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/9/2021 12/28/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2022 11/30/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/30/2022 1/12/2022 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 2,400.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 5,570.00 5,566.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 3,000.00 3,692.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,000.00 36.84
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.19 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.00 0.72
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 203.98 203.983 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 1.9112 21.7503 13.5126 0.0262 7.3027 0.9363 8.2390 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,598.547 9 2,598.547
9 0.6657 0.0865 2,640.969
3 2022 2.1839 14.1911 15.1981 0.0275 0.2243 0.6739 0.8982 0.0601 0.6537 0.7138 0.0000 2,540.599 3 2,540.599
3 0.3744 0.0186 2,555.512
0 2023 2.0365 13.2409 15.0283 0.0274 0.2243 0.5873 0.8116 0.0601 0.5695 0.6296 0.0000 2,532.868 5 2,532.868
5 0.3636 0.0177 2,547.222
3 Maximum 2.1839 21.7503 15.1981 0.0275 7.3027 0.9363 8.2390 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,598.547 9 2,598.547
9 0.6657 0.0865 2,640.969
3 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 1.9112 21.7503 13.5126 0.0262 7.3027 0.9363 8.2390 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,598.547 9 2,598.547
9 0.6657 0.0865 2,640.969
3 2022 2.1839 14.1911 15.1981 0.0275 0.2243 0.6739 0.8982 0.0601 0.6537 0.7138 0.0000 2,540.599 3 2,540.599
3 0.3744 0.0186 2,555.512
0 2023 2.0365 13.2409 15.0283 0.0274 0.2243 0.5873 0.8116 0.0601 0.5695 0.6296 0.0000 2,532.868 5 2,532.868
5 0.3636 0.0177 2,547.222
3 Maximum 2.1839 21.7503 15.1981 0.0275 7.3027 0.9363 8.2390 3.4835 0.8621 4.3456 0.0000 2,598.547 9 2,598.547
9 0.6657 0.0865 2,640.969
3 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Energy 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749 Mobile 0.6197 0.7268 5.9867 0.0111 1.2051 8.4500e0031.2135 0.3209 7.8700e0030.3288 1,143.000 2 1,143.000
2 0.0852 0.0598 1,162.952
0 Offroad 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.6708 1.0329 17.9365 0.0318 1.2051 1.4920 2.6970 0.3209 1.4914 1.8123 159.0461 1,362.048 1 1,521.094
1 0.3084 0.0737 1,550.771
9 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Energy 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749 Mobile 0.5147 0.5177 4.3415 6.9100e0030.7325 5.5500e0030.7381 0.1951 5.1700e0030.2003 710.4022 710.4022 0.0675 0.0431 724.9384 Offroad 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.5658 0.8237 16.2913 0.0276 0.7325 1.4891 2.2216 0.1951 1.4887 1.6838 159.0461 929.4501 1,088.496 2 0.2906 0.0570 1,112.758
2 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/1/2021 10/4/2021 5 2 2 Grading Grading 10/5/2021 11/29/2021 5 40
3 Building Construction Building Construction 12/28/2021 5/15/2023 5 360 4 Paving Paving 11/30/2021 12/27/2021 5 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
1.21 20.25 9.17 13.23 39.21 0.19 17.63 39.21 0.18 7.09 0.00 31.76 28.44 5.75 22.63 28.24 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/12/2022 5/30/2023 5 360 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 7,551; Residential Outdoor: 2,517; Non-Residential Indoor: 4,743; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,581; Striped Parking Area:
694 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.88
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 40
Acres of Paving: 0.26
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2662 0.0000 6.2662 3.0041 0.0000 3.0041 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 0.7654 0.7654 0.7041 0.7041 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Total 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 6.2662 0.7654 7.0316 3.0041 0.7041 3.7082 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 300.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 20.00 4.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 4.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0256 0.0197 0.2139 5.6000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 57.0849 57.0849 2.0500e0031.8600e00357.6918 Total 0.0256 0.0197 0.2139 5.6000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 57.0849 57.0849 2.0500e0031.8600e00357.6918 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2662 0.0000 6.2662 3.0041 0.0000 3.0041 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 0.7654 0.7654 0.7041 0.7041 0.0000 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Total 1.5558 17.4203 7.5605 0.0172 6.2662 0.7654 7.0316 3.0041 0.7041 3.7082 0.0000 1,666.517 4 1,666.517
4 0.5390 1,679.992
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0256 0.0197 0.2139 5.6000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 57.0849 57.0849 2.0500e0031.8600e00357.6918 Total 0.0256 0.0197 0.2139 5.6000e0040.0657 3.6000e0040.0661 0.0174 3.3000e0040.0178 57.0849 57.0849 2.0500e0031.8600e00357.6918 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0894 0.0000 7.0894 3.4258 0.0000 3.4258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 7.0894 0.9158 8.0051 3.4258 0.8425 4.2683 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0521 1.5122 0.3218 4.8900e0030.1312 0.0201 0.1512 0.0360 0.0192 0.0552 531.5804 531.5804 0.0178 0.0842 557.1076 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0320 0.0246 0.2674 7.0000e0040.0822 4.5000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.2000e0040.0222 71.3561 71.3561 2.5600e0032.3300e00372.1148 Total 0.0841 1.5368 0.5892 5.5900e0030.2133 0.0205 0.2338 0.0577 0.0196 0.0774 602.9365 602.9365 0.0203 0.0865 629.2223 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0894 0.0000 7.0894 3.4258 0.0000 3.4258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 7.0894 0.9158 8.0051 3.4258 0.8425 4.2683 0.0000 1,995.611 4 1,995.611
4 0.6454 2,011.747
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0521 1.5122 0.3218 4.8900e0030.1312 0.0201 0.1512 0.0360 0.0192 0.0552 531.5804 531.5804 0.0178 0.0842 557.1076 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0320 0.0246 0.2674 7.0000e0040.0822 4.5000e0040.0826 0.0218 4.2000e0040.0222 71.3561 71.3561 2.5600e0032.3300e00372.1148 Total 0.0841 1.5368 0.5892 5.5900e0030.2133 0.0205 0.2338 0.0577 0.0196 0.0774 602.9365 602.9365 0.0203 0.0865 629.2223 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Total 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0133 0.2712 0.0784 8.7000e0040.0271 4.3000e0030.0314 7.8000e0034.1200e0030.0119 93.1006 93.1006 2.1900e0030.0138 97.2761 Worker 0.0639 0.0492 0.5348 1.4100e0030.1643 9.1000e0040.1652 0.0436 8.4000e0040.0444 142.7122 142.7122 5.1200e0034.6600e003144.2295 Total 0.0773 0.3204 0.6132 2.2800e0030.1914 5.2100e0030.1966 0.0514 4.9600e0030.0563 235.8128 235.8128 7.3100e0030.0185 241.5056 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 0.0000 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Total 1.8125 13.6361 12.8994 0.0221 0.6843 0.6843 0.6608 0.6608 0.0000 2,001.220 0 2,001.220
0 0.3573 2,010.151
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0133 0.2712 0.0784 8.7000e0040.0271 4.3000e0030.0314 7.8000e0034.1200e0030.0119 93.1006 93.1006 2.1900e0030.0138 97.2761 Worker 0.0639 0.0492 0.5348 1.4100e0030.1643 9.1000e0040.1652 0.0436 8.4000e0040.0444 142.7122 142.7122 5.1200e0034.6600e003144.2295 Total 0.0773 0.3204 0.6132 2.2800e0030.1914 5.2100e0030.1966 0.0514 4.9600e0030.0563 235.8128 235.8128 7.3100e0030.0185 241.5056 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.5400e0030.2276 0.0663 8.5000e0040.0271 2.3000e0030.0294 7.8000e0032.2000e0030.0100 90.8311 90.8311 1.9700e0030.0135 94.8955 Worker 0.0594 0.0433 0.4932 1.3700e0030.1643 8.6000e0040.1652 0.0436 7.9000e0040.0444 138.9811 138.9811 4.6200e0034.3000e003140.3769 Total 0.0680 0.2709 0.5595 2.2200e0030.1914 3.1600e0030.1945 0.0514 2.9900e0030.0544 229.8122 229.8122 6.5900e0030.0178 235.2724 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542 9 2,001.542
9 0.3486 2,010.258
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.5400e0030.2276 0.0663 8.5000e0040.0271 2.3000e0030.0294 7.8000e0032.2000e0030.0100 90.8311 90.8311 1.9700e0030.0135 94.8955 Worker 0.0594 0.0433 0.4932 1.3700e0030.1643 8.6000e0040.1652 0.0436 7.9000e0040.0444 138.9811 138.9811 4.6200e0034.3000e003140.3769 Total 0.0680 0.2709 0.5595 2.2200e0030.1914 3.1600e0030.1945 0.0514 2.9900e0030.0544 229.8122 229.8122 6.5900e0030.0178 235.2724 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.2000e0030.1815 0.0567 8.1000e0040.0271 1.0400e0030.0281 7.8000e0031.0000e0038.8000e00387.1088 87.1088 1.7700e0030.0129 90.9948 Worker 0.0555 0.0383 0.4579 1.3200e0030.1643 8.1000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.5000e0040.0443 135.4366 135.4366 4.1800e0033.9800e003136.7273 Total 0.0597 0.2199 0.5146 2.1300e0030.1914 1.8500e0030.1932 0.0514 1.7500e0030.0531 222.5454 222.5454 5.9500e0030.0169 227.7221 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787 7 2,001.787
7 0.3399 2,010.285
8 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.4 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.2000e0030.1815 0.0567 8.1000e0040.0271 1.0400e0030.0281 7.8000e0031.0000e0038.8000e00387.1088 87.1088 1.7700e0030.0129 90.9948 Worker 0.0555 0.0383 0.4579 1.3200e0030.1643 8.1000e0040.1651 0.0436 7.5000e0040.0443 135.4366 135.4366 4.1800e0033.9800e003136.7273 Total 0.0597 0.2199 0.5146 2.1300e0030.1914 1.8500e0030.1932 0.0514 1.7500e0030.0531 222.5454 222.5454 5.9500e0030.0169 227.7221 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7739 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Paving 0.0341 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8079 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0416 0.0320 0.3476 9.2000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 92.7629 92.7629 3.3300e0033.0300e00393.7492 Total 0.0416 0.0320 0.3476 9.2000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 92.7629 92.7629 3.3300e0033.0300e00393.7492 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.7739 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 0.0000 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Paving 0.0341 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.8079 7.7422 8.8569 0.0135 0.4153 0.4153 0.3830 0.3830 0.0000 1,296.866 4 1,296.866
4 0.4111 1,307.144
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.5 Paving - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0416 0.0320 0.3476 9.2000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 92.7629 92.7629 3.3300e0033.0300e00393.7492 Total 0.0416 0.0320 0.3476 9.2000e0040.1068 5.9000e0040.1074 0.0283 5.4000e0040.0289 92.7629 92.7629 3.3300e0033.0300e00393.7492 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.4554 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0119 8.6600e0030.0986 2.7000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00327.7962 27.7962 9.2000e0048.6000e00428.0754 Total 0.0119 8.6600e0030.0986 2.7000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00327.7962 27.7962 9.2000e0048.6000e00428.0754 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Total 0.4554 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e0030.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0119 8.6600e0030.0986 2.7000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00327.7962 27.7962 9.2000e0048.6000e00428.0754 Total 0.0119 8.6600e0030.0986 2.7000e0040.0329 1.7000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.6000e0048.8700e00327.7962 27.7962 9.2000e0048.6000e00428.0754 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.4425 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0111 7.6700e0030.0916 2.6000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00327.0873 27.0873 8.4000e0048.0000e00427.3455 Total 0.0111 7.6700e0030.0916 2.6000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00327.0873 27.0873 8.4000e0048.0000e00427.3455 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.2508 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 0.4425 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e0030.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0111 7.6700e0030.0916 2.6000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00327.0873 27.0873 8.4000e0048.0000e00427.3455 Total 0.0111 7.6700e0030.0916 2.6000e0040.0329 1.6000e0040.0330 8.7200e0031.5000e0048.8700e00327.0873 27.0873 8.4000e0048.0000e00427.3455 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Diversity
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.5147 0.5177 4.3415 6.9100e0030.7325 5.5500e0030.7381 0.1951 5.1700e0030.2003 710.4022 710.4022 0.0675 0.0431 724.9384 Unmitigated 0.6197 0.7268 5.9867 0.0111 1.2051 8.4500e0031.2135 0.3209 7.8700e0030.3288 1,143.000 2 1,143.000
2 0.0852 0.0598 1,162.952
0 4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 21.96 24.42 18.84 50,501 30,699
Condo/Townhouse 117.12 130.24 100.48 269,340 163,726
Medical Office Building 110.04 27.10 4.49 162,669 98,883 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 249.12 181.76 123.81 482,510 293,308
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Medical Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 29.60 51.40 19.00 60 30 10 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Condo/Townhouse 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Medical Office Building 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928 Parking Lot 0.552821 0.058334 0.189005 0.121481 0.023262 0.005577 0.010166 0.007476 0.001000 0.000579 0.026545 0.000826 0.002928
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e0039.2300e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6700e003146.6749
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
160.405 1.7300e0030.0148 6.2900e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e00318.8712 18.8712 3.6000e0043.5000e00418.9834 Condo/Townhous
e
913.07 9.8500e0030.0842 0.0358 5.4000e0046.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e003107.4200 107.4200 2.0600e0031.9700e003108.0583 Medical Office
Building
165.897 1.7900e0030.0163 0.0137 1.0000e0041.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e00319.5173 19.5173 3.7000e0043.6000e00419.6332 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6800e003146.6749 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
0.160405 1.7300e0030.0148 6.2900e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e00318.8712 18.8712 3.6000e0043.5000e00418.9834 Condo/Townhous
e
0.91307 9.8500e0030.0842 0.0358 5.4000e0046.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e0036.8000e003107.4200 107.4200 2.0600e0031.9700e003108.0583 Medical Office
Building
0.165897 1.7900e0030.0163 0.0137 1.0000e0041.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e0031.2400e00319.5173 19.5173 3.7000e0043.6000e00419.6332 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0134 0.1152 0.0558 7.3000e0049.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e0039.2400e003145.8084 145.8084 2.7900e0032.6800e003146.6749 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Unmitigated 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0247 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1516 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 7.8139 0.1727 10.3238 0.0199 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 159.0461 70.4118 229.4578 0.2177 0.0112 238.2491 Landscaping 0.0475 0.0181 1.5703 8.0000e0058.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0032.8277 2.8277 2.7300e0032.8959 Total 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Apply Water Conservation Strategy
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0247 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1516 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 7.8139 0.1727 10.3238 0.0199 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 1.4656 159.0461 70.4118 229.4578 0.2177 0.0112 238.2491 Landscaping 0.0475 0.0181 1.5703 8.0000e0058.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0038.6900e0032.8277 2.8277 2.7300e0032.8959 Total 8.0377 0.1908 11.8941 0.0200 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 1.4743 159.0461 73.2395 232.2855 0.2204 0.0112 241.1449 Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Excavators 0 8.00 260 158 0.38 Diesel
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
11.0 Vegetation
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Equipment Type lb/day lb/day
Excavators 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 UnMitigated/Mitigated
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 30 Date: 6/11/2021 9:34 AM Crespi Drive Project - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.f
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Bay Area AQMD Air District, Mitigation Report
Construction Mitigation Summary
Phase ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBioCO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OFFROAD Equipment Mitigation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Equipment Type Fuel Type Tier Number Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPF Oxidation Catalyst Air Compressors Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00 Generator Sets Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Cranes Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Forklifts Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Graders Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00
Pavers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Rollers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel No Change 0 5 No Change 0.00 Paving Equipment Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00
Welders Diesel No Change 0 3 No Change 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated tons/yr Unmitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 3.61300E-002 2.47880E-001 3.26310E-001 5.30000E-004 1.41300E-002 1.41300E-002 0.00000E+000 4.59586E+001 4.59586E+001 2.92000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.60316E+001 Cement and
Mortar Mixers
4.40000E-004 2.76000E-003 2.31000E-003 1.00000E-005 1.10000E-004 1.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.43710E-001 3.43710E-001 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 3.44600E-001 Cranes 4.96400E-002 5.52600E-001 2.53520E-001 7.80000E-004 2.29700E-002 2.11300E-002 0.00000E+000 6.84394E+001 6.84394E+001 2.21300E-002 0.00000E+000 6.89928E+001 Forklifts 1.49600E-002 1.39170E-001 1.55450E-001 2.10000E-004 9.07000E-003 8.35000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.81293E+001 1.81293E+001 5.86000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.82759E+001 Generator Sets 5.83000E-002 5.17350E-001 6.61370E-001 1.18000E-003 2.55900E-002 2.55900E-002 0.00000E+000 1.01737E+002 1.01737E+002 4.74000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.01856E+002 Graders 9.51000E-003 1.24420E-001 3.71100E-002 1.40000E-004 3.94000E-003 3.63000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.22247E+001 1.22247E+001 3.95000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.23235E+001 Pavers 1.85000E-003 1.94600E-002 2.17900E-002 4.00000E-005 9.40000E-004 8.70000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.09618E+000 3.09618E+000 1.00000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.12122E+000 Paving Equipment 1.92000E-003 1.94000E-002 2.54100E-002 4.00000E-005 9.60000E-004 8.80000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.57844E+000 3.57844E+000 1.16000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.60738E+000 Rollers 1.66000E-003 1.68400E-002 1.64500E-002 2.00000E-005 1.03000E-003 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.01692E+000 2.01692E+000 6.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.03323E+000 Rubber Tired
Dozers
2.18400E-002 2.29030E-001 8.42900E-002 1.80000E-004 1.11100E-002 1.02300E-002 0.00000E+000 1.56680E+001 1.56680E+001 5.07000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.57947E+001 Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
3.04000E-002 3.08710E-001 4.05890E-001 5.60000E-004 1.68300E-002 1.54800E-002 0.00000E+000 4.94600E+001 4.94600E+001 1.60000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.98599E+001 Welders 1.46390E-001 7.84140E-001 9.13310E-001 1.38000E-003 3.33000E-002 3.33000E-002 0.00000E+000 1.01639E+002 1.01639E+002 1.18900E-002 0.00000E+000 1.01936E+002 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Mitigated tons/yr Mitigated mt/yr
Air Compressors 3.61300E-002 2.47880E-001 3.26310E-001 5.30000E-004 1.41300E-002 1.41300E-002 0.00000E+000 4.59585E+001 4.59585E+001 2.92000E-003 0.00000E+000 4.60315E+001 Cement and Mortar
Mixers
4.40000E-004 2.76000E-003 2.31000E-003 1.00000E-005 1.10000E-004 1.10000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.43710E-001 3.43710E-001 4.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 3.44600E-001 Cranes 4.96400E-002 5.52600E-001 2.53520E-001 7.80000E-004 2.29700E-002 2.11300E-002 0.00000E+000 6.84394E+001 6.84394E+001 2.21300E-002 0.00000E+000 6.89927E+001 Forklifts 1.49600E-002 1.39170E-001 1.55450E-001 2.10000E-004 9.07000E-003 8.35000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.81293E+001 1.81293E+001 5.86000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.82759E+001 Generator Sets 5.83000E-002 5.17350E-001 6.61370E-001 1.18000E-003 2.55900E-002 2.55900E-002 0.00000E+000 1.01737E+002 1.01737E+002 4.74000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.01856E+002 Graders 9.51000E-003 1.24420E-001 3.71100E-002 1.40000E-004 3.94000E-003 3.63000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.22246E+001 1.22246E+001 3.95000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.23235E+001 Pavers 1.85000E-003 1.94600E-002 2.17900E-002 4.00000E-005 9.40000E-004 8.70000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.09618E+000 3.09618E+000 1.00000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.12121E+000 Paving Equipment 1.92000E-003 1.94000E-002 2.54100E-002 4.00000E-005 9.60000E-004 8.80000E-004 0.00000E+000 3.57844E+000 3.57844E+000 1.16000E-003 0.00000E+000 3.60737E+000 Rollers 1.66000E-003 1.68400E-002 1.64500E-002 2.00000E-005 1.03000E-003 9.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.01692E+000 2.01692E+000 6.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.03323E+000 Rubber Tired Dozers 2.18400E-002 2.29030E-001 8.42900E-002 1.80000E-004 1.11100E-002 1.02300E-002 0.00000E+000 1.56680E+001 1.56680E+001 5.07000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.57946E+001 Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes
3.04000E-002 3.08710E-001 4.05890E-001 5.60000E-004 1.68300E-002 1.54800E-002 0.00000E+000 4.94599E+001 4.94599E+001 1.60000E-002 0.00000E+000 4.98598E+001 Welders 1.46390E-001 7.84140E-001 9.13300E-001 1.38000E-003 3.33000E-002 3.33000E-002 0.00000E+000 1.01639E+002 1.01639E+002 1.18900E-002 0.00000E+000 1.01936E+002 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Percent Reduction
Air Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.30552E-006 1.30552E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.08621E-006 Cement and Mortar
Mixers
0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Cranes 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.16892E-006 1.16892E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.15954E-006 Forklifts 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.10318E-006 1.10318E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.09434E-006 Generator Sets 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17951E-006 1.17951E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17814E-006 Graders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.63604E-006 1.63604E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.62292E-006 Pavers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 3.20388E-006 Paving Equipment 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.77209E-006 Rollers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.27649E-006 1.27649E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.26625E-006 Tractors/Loaders/Ba
ckhoes
0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.21310E-006 1.21310E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.20337E-006 Welders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.09492E-005 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.18065E-006 1.18065E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.27531E-006 Fugitive Dust Mitigation
No Soil Stabilizer for unpaved
Roads
PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
No Replace Ground Cover of Area
Disturbed
PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction
Yes/No Mitigation Measure Mitigation Input Mitigation Input Mitigation Input CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of No Water Exposed Area PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Frequency (per day)
No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content
%
Vehicle Speed
(mph)
0.00 No Clean Paved Road % PM Reduction 0.00
Operational Percent Reduction Summary
Unmitigated Mitigated Percent Reduction
Phase Source PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
Architectural Coating Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating Roads 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Construction Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Construction Roads 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 Grading Fugitive Dust 0.14 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.00
Grading Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Site Preparation Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Site Preparation Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Category ROG NOx CO SO2
Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5 Bio- CO2
NBioCO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Percent Reduction
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile 16.53 28.94 28.52 38.01 34.11 34.17 0.00 37.88 37.88 21.85 28.11 37.71 Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Indoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.31 20.00 Water Outdoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operational Mobile Mitigation
Mitigation
Selected
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Category
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
Land Use
% Reduction
0.00 0.38
0.00 0.24
0.00 0.00
0.18 Input Value 1
0.00 0.00
0.45 0.00
0.00 0.01
Input Value 2
0.00 Measure Input Value 3
Increase Diversity
Land Use SubTotal
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Destination Accessibility
Improve Walkability Design
Increase Density
Project Setting: Urban
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Yes
No
No Neighborhood Enhancements
Neighborhood Enhancements
Neighborhood Enhancements
0.00 0.00
2.00 Project Site and
Connecting OffSite
Implement NEV Network
Provide Traffic Calming Measures
Improve Pedestrian Network
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Parking Policy Pricing
Transit Improvements
Transit Improvements
Transit Improvements
Transit Improvements
Parking Policy Pricing
Parking Policy Pricing
Parking Policy Pricing
Neighborhood Enhancements 0.02
0.39 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 Limit Parking Supply
Land Use and Site Enhancement Subtotal
Transit Improvements Subtotal
Increase Transit Frequency
Expand Transit Network
Provide BRT System
Parking Policy Pricing Subtotal
On-street Market Pricing
Unbundle Parking Costs
Neighborhood Enhancements Subtotal
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
Commute
0.00 0.00
0.00 7.70
0.00 2.00
Transit Subsidy
Employee Vanpool/Shuttle
Market Commute Trip Reduction Option
Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative
Work Schedules
Workplace Parking Charge
Implement Employee Parking "Cash Out"
Implement Trip Reduction Program
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of No
No School Trip
Commute
Commute
0.00 0.00
15.00 Implement School Bus Program
Commute Subtotal
Provide Ride Sharing Program
Total VMT Reduction 0.39
Area Mitigation
Measure Implemented
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Mitigation Measure
No Hearth
% Electric Chainsaw
% Electric Leafblower
% Electric Lawnmower
Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior)
Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior)
Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior)
Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior)
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies
Only Natural Gas Hearth
Input Value
150.00
100.00
150.00
100.00
Energy Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
No
Mitigation Measure
Exceed Title 24
Input Value 1 Input Value 2
No Use Low VOC Paint (Parking) 150.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Solid Waste Mitigation
Yes
No Install High Efficiency Lighting
On-site Renewable 46.00
Appliance Type Land Use Subtype % Improvement
ClothWasher 30.00
DishWasher 15.00
Fan 50.00
Refrigerator 15.00
Water Mitigation Measures
Measure Implemented
No
No
Yes
Mitigation Measure
Use Reclaimed Water
Use Grey Water
Apply Water Conservation on Strategy
Input Value 1
20.00 0.00
0.00 20.00
0.00 Input Value 2
No
No
No
No
Install low-flow bathroom faucet
Install low-flow Toilet
Install low-flow Shower
Install low-flow Kitchen faucet
32.00 18.00
20.00 20.00
No
No
No
Turf Reduction
Water Efficient Landscape
Use Water Efficient Irrigation Systems
0.00 6.10
0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Mitigation Measures
Institute Recycling and Composting Services
Percent Reduction in Waste Disposed
Input Value
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 11 Date: 6/11/2021 9:35 AM EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Crespi Drive Project
11.f
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of AERMOD Model Options
Model Options
Pathway Keyword Description Value
CO TITLEONE Project title 1 Crespi Drive Project Construction Health Risk Assessment CO TITLETWO Project title 2
CO MODELOPT Model options DFAULT,CONC,NODRYDPLT,NOWETDPLT CO AVERTIME Averaging times 1,24,ANNUAL
CO URBANOPT Urban options
CO POLLUTID Pollutant ID PM25 H1H
CO HALFLIFE Half life
CO DCAYCOEF Decay coefficient
CO FLAGPOLE Flagpole receptor heights 1.8
CO RUNORNOT Run or Not RUN
CO EVENTFIL Event file F
CO SAVEFILE Save file F
CO INITFILE Initialization file
CO MULTYEAR Multiple year option N/A
CO DEBUGOPT Debug options N/A
CO ERRORFIL Error file F
SO ELEVUNIT Elevation units METERS
SO EMISUNIT Emission units N/A
RE ELEVUNIT Elevation units METERS
ME SURFFILE Surface met file C:\USERS\BSHEA\DESKTOP\METEOR~1\SANFRA~1.SFC ME PROFFILE Profile met file C:\USERS\BSHEA\DESKTOP\METEOR~1\SANFRA~1.PFL ME SURFDATA Surf met data info. 23234 2009
ME UAIRDATA U-Air met data info. 23230 2009
ME SITEDATA On-site met data info.
ME PROFBASE Elev. above MSL 2.4
ME STARTEND Start-end met dates
ME WDROTATE Wind dir. rot. adjust.
ME WINDCATS Wind speed cat. max.
ME SCIMBYHR SCIM sample params
EV DAYTABLE Print summary opt. N/A
OU EVENTOUT Output info. level N/A
Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 1 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/BREEZE/Aermod/20210611100131/ReportsTemp.htm 6/11/2021
11.f
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Source Parameter Tables
OU DAYTABLE Print summary opt.
All Sources
Source ID /
Pollutant ID Source Type Description UTM Elev. Emiss. Rate Emiss. Units Release
Height
East (m) North (m) (m) (m)
29R3K7E1 VOLUME Construction Equip 544210.9 4161358.8 0 0.00288001 (g/s) 5 Volume Sources
Source ID /
Pollutant ID Description
UTM Elev. Emiss. Rate Release
Height
Init. Lat.
Dim.
Init. Vert.
Dim.
East (m) North (m) (m) (g/s) (m) (m) (m)
29R3K7E1 Construction Equip 544210.9 4161358.8 0 0.00288001 5 29.59 1 Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 2 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/BREEZE/Aermod/20210611100131/ReportsTemp.htm 6/11/2021
11.f
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) BREEZE AERMOD Model Results
Max. Annual ( 5 YEARS) Results of Pollutant: PM25 (ug/m**3) Group ID High Avg. Conc. UTM Elev. Hill Ht. Flag Ht. Rec. Type Grid ID East (m) North (m) (m) (m) (m)
ALL 1ST 0.02881 544313.30 4161379.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
2ND 0.02861 544308.30 4161389.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
3RD 0.02761 544313.30 4161384.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
4TH 0.02745 544318.30 4161374.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
5TH 0.02717 544167.10 4161255.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
6TH 0.02707 544308.30 4161394.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
7TH 0.02649 544318.30 4161379.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
8TH 0.02632 544313.30 4161389.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
9TH 0.02629 544177.10 4161250.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
10TH 0.02628 544162.10 4161255.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC
Highest Results of Pollutant: PM25
Avg.
Per.
Grp
ID High Type Val Units
Date UTM Elev. Hill
Ht.
Flag
Ht. Rec.
Type
Grid
ID YYMMDDHH East (m) North
(m) (m) (m) (m)
1-HR ALL 1ST Avg.
Conc. 3.47117 ug/m**3 09011618 544167.10 4161255.70 0.00 0.00 1.80 DC Summary of Total Messages
# Message Type
0 Fatal Error Message(s)
4 Warning Message(s)
6306 Informational Message(s)
43872 Hours Were Processed
5804 Calm Hours Identified
502 Missing Hours Identified ( 1.14 Percent)
Error & Warning Messages
Msg. Type Pathway Ref. # Description
WARNING CO W276 Special proc for 1h-NO2/SO2 24hPM25 NAAQS disabled PM25 H1H WARNING CO W363 Multiyr 24h/Ann PM25 processing not applicable for PM25 H1H Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 1 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/BREEZE/Aermod/20210611100131/ReportsTemp.htm 6/11/2021
11.f
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) www.breeze-software.com
WARNING OU W565 Possible Conflict With Dynamically Allocated FUNIT PLOTFILE WARNING MX W481 Data Remaining After End of Year. Number of Hours= 48 Report for "Crespi_Aermod.ami" Page 2 of 2
file:///C:/ProgramData/BREEZE/Aermod/20210611100131/ReportsTemp.htm 6/11/2021
11.f
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) *HARP - HRACalc v19044 6/11/2021 10:15:59 AM - Cancer Risk - Input File: C:\Users\bshea\Desktop\HARP\Crespi_HRAInput.hra INDEX GRP1 GRP2 POLID POLABBREV CONC RISK_SUM SCENARIO DETAILS INH_RISK SOIL_RISK 1 9901 DieselExhPM 0.02881 8.67E-06 1.75YrCancerHighEnd_Inh_FAH16to70 * 8.67E-06 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of DERMAL_RISK MMILK_RISK WATER_RISK FISH_RISK CROP_RISK BEEF_RISK DAIRY_RISK PIG_RISK CHICKEN_RISK EGG_RISK 1ST_DRIVER
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 NA
11.f
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 2ND_DRIVER PASTURE_CONC FISH_CONC WATER_CONC
NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of *HARP - HRACalc v19044 6/11/2021 10:15:59 AM - Chronic Risk - Input File: C:\Users\bshea\Desktop\HARP\Crespi_HRAInput.hra INDEX GRP1 GRP2 POLID POLABBREV CONC SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY GILV 1 9901 DieselExhPM 0.02881 NonCancerChronicHighEnd_Inh 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of REPRO/DEVEL RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETH ENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL DETAILS INH_CONC SOIL_DOSE
0.00E+00 5.76E-03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 * 2.88E-02 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of DERMAL_DOSE MMILK_DOSE WATER_DOSE FISH_DOSE CROP_DOSE BEEF_DOSE DAIRY_DOSE PIG_DOSE CHICKEN_DOSE EGG_DOSE
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 1ST_DRIVER 2ND_DRIVER 3RD_DRIVER PASTURE_CONC FISH_CONC WATER_CONC INHALATION NA NA 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of *HARP - HRACalc v19044 6/11/2021 10:15:59 AM - Acute Risk - Input File: C:\Users\bshea\Desktop\HARP\Crespi_HRAInput.hra INDEX GRP1 GRP2 POLID POLABBREV CONC SCENARIO CV CNS IMMUN KIDNEY GILV REPRO/DEVEL 1 9901 DieselExhPM 3.47117 NonCancerAcute 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of
RESP SKIN EYE BONE/TEETH ENDO BLOOD ODOR GENERAL
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
11.f
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Appendix B
Biological Constraints Analysis,
Biological Constraints Analysis Update, and
Aquatic Resources Delineation
11.f
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project)
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
1136 Saranap Ave., Suite Q Walnut Creek California 94595 (925) 947-4867 FAX (925) 947-1165
BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
570 CRESPI DRIVE, CITY OF PACIFICA
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
(APNS: 022-162-310) (~1.7 ACRES)
OCTOBER 8, 2014
Prepared for
SC Properties
311 South Ellsworth
San Mateo, California 94401
Attention: Mr. Brendan Murphy
Prepared by
Monk & Associates, Inc.
1136 Saranap Avenue, Suite Q
Walnut Creek, California 94595
Attention: Mr. Geoff Monk
11.f
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
i
Monk & associates
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1
2. APPLICANT.....................................................................................................................................1
3. PROPOSED PROJECT....................................................................................................................1
4. PROJECT SITE SETTING ..............................................................................................................1
5. PLANT COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITATS.............................................................2
6. PROJECT SITE HYDROLOGY .....................................................................................................2
7. POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES.........3
7.1 Special-Status Species Definition ...........................................................................................3
7.2 Potentially Occurring Special Status Plant Species................................................................6
7.2.1 MONTEREY CYPRESS ...............................................................................................................6
7.3 Potentially Occurring Special-Status Animal Species ...........................................................6
7.3.1 SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE............................................................................................6
7.3.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG .............................................................................................8
7.3.3 SALTMARSH COMMON YELLOWTHROAT.................................................................................9
8. HERITAGE TREES .........................................................................................................................9
9. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS..............10
9.1 Federal Endangered Species Act...........................................................................................10
9.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act .......................................................................................10
9.3 California Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................11
9.4 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513.......................................11
9.5 Protected Amphibians ...........................................................................................................12
10. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATE..................................................................................................................12
10.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting ................................12
10.1.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ..........................................................................12
10.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................15
11. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (SWRCB) / CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB)..........................................16
11.1.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ..........................................................................16
11.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................17
11.1.3 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT ........................................................17
11.1.4 APPLICABILITY TO PROPOSED PROJECT..............................................................................18
12. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PROTECTIONS ......................18
13. LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................................................19
11.f
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
ii
Monk & associates
FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Location Map.
Figure 2. Regional Aerial Photograph Showing Project Site Location.
Figure 3. Expanded Aerial Photograph of the Project Site.
Figure 4. California Natural Diversity Records within 2 Miles of the Project Site.
TABLES
Table 1. Special-Status Plant Species Known from the Pacifica Area.
Table 2. Special-Status Plant Species Known from the Pacifica Area.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A. Total Potential Wetlands Area on the Project Site.
11.f
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
1 Monk & associates
1. INTRODUCTION
On September 2, 2014 you received a Building Inspection Compliance Report from the City of Pacifica stating that you were to stop all work at 570 Crespi Drive (the project site) in the City of Pacifica (the City) (Figures 1 and 2). Per my conversation with you, after discussing this with the City, you were instructed to obtain a Biological Constraints Report. In response, Monk & Associates, Inc., (M&A) principal investigator Mr. Geoff Monk visited the project site on September 17, 2014 to evaluate biological resources on the project site and to determine if proposed development of the project site would affect special-status species and/or resource agency regulated areas.
M&A’s analysis of biological regulatory issues that would be pertinent to development of the project site comes from our background research, our September 17, 2014 site visit, and our knowledge of biological resource issues (for example, special-status species and wetland permitting) in the Pacifica area. Below we describe the project site’s biological resources and the federal and state regulations that would be applicable or not applicable to any proposal to develop the project site.
Please note that development of the project site could be subjected to distinct major regulatory processes. The City of Pacifica may, at a minimum, initiate review conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, there are features on the project site that if impacted (as detailed below), would be subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Below we discuss our findings and regulatory considerations they pertain to any proposal to develop the project site.
2. APPLICANT
SC Properties
311 South Ellsworth
San Mateo, California 94401
Attention: Mr. Brendan Murphy
3. PROPOSED PROJECT
A project is not defined at this time, but likely will include development of some form of housing.
4. PROJECT SITE SETTING
The project site is a long and narrow parcel that is approximately 75 feet wide (east to west) and is 530 feet deep (north to south) (Figure 3). It is an “urban infill” location situated within the City of Pacifica. It is surrounded by the Crespi Business Center immediately to the east, by highdensity multifamily senior housing, a liquor store, and a post office all immediately north of the property on Crespi Avenue, and there are single family homes on Anza Street at the southern project site boundary. Finally, the City owned Senior Center and a skateboard park occur immediately west of the project site.
11.f
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
2 Monk & associates
The project site currently supports a single-family home located on the north end of the property.
That home and use of the project site dates back several decades, although the home has been used in a “low-use” capacity for many years. There were utility sheds visible in aerial photographs from Google Earth at the backside of the house that were recently cleared.
5. PLANT COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITATS
There is a Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) grove on the northern end of the project site that grows over and around the single family home. Sparse residual landscape species remain around the house, but for the most part the extensive shade and a deep litter layer created by the Monteray cypress trees prevent most herbaceous species from growing near/around the house. Immediately behind the house to approximately 150 feet south of Crespi Avenue, there is an area that was the former active use area of the residence. It is now characterized by debris from recently demolished sheds, fencing and other miscellaneous forms of debris. An herbaceous weedy community remains, but extensive recent clearing of the old structures and landscaping around the residence has rendered this backyard area so disturbed that it is difficult to identify many herbaceous plants. M&A did identify wild oats (Avena sp.) as the dominant cover remaining today, but it is clear that extensive Himalayan blackberry (Rubis armeniacus) was present and extended southward on the property. Starting approximately 150 south of the residence almost to the south end of the project site it appears that this area supported a dominant cover of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) but was recently cleared via chainsaws. These willows extend onto/from the City’s property immediately west of the project site. The dominant understory species is spreading bent grass (Agrostis stolonifera). At the middle to rear one-third of the project site, the willow community phases into a non-canopied, seasonal wetland that is dominated by Baltic rush (Juncus balticus). This area is at the lowest elevation on the project site and is subjected to seasonal inundation. The willow community again becomes dominant at the south end of the project site. Willows were not recently cleared to within approximately 50 of the southern property boundary.
6. PROJECT SITE HYDROLOGY
The project site is an old residential home site that over the years has been completely surrounded by development that raised all grades around the project site approximately 1 to 4 feet above the project site elevations. The Crespi Business Center imported or cut/filled up to 4 feet of fill above the project site that extends at a 2:1 slope off the backside of the Business Center down to the project site’s eastern boundary. Similarly, residences along Anza Street to the south were constructed on fill that is approximately 1 foot above the highest elevations of the project site. Immediately west of the project site is a sliver of property (approximately 50-60 feet wide east to west) owned by the City of Pacifica, which is approximately level with the project site at the north end, but slopes 1 to 1.5 feet lower in elevation than the project site at the middle and back (south) end of this City property.
Immediately to the west of the narrow City parcel are a community skate board park and the Pacifica Community Center. These were constructed on fill that is approximately 2 to 4 feet higher in elevation than the adjacent City owned property immediately west of the project site and the project site. Thus, the project site and the City of Pacifica’s narrow parcel are in a deep, depressional area with only a restricted opportunity to drain.
11.f
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
3 Monk & associates
The project site slopes gently from north to south. The old residence and immediate backyard area are approximately 1-2 higher in elevation than the back (south) end of the property. Rainfall sheet water flows southward on the project sit, off the project site to a topography low area on the City’s narrow sliver of property immediately west of the project site. When rainfall collects to 1 foot deep on the City parcel it then extends onto the project site at the location where a Baltic rush seasonal wetland occurs. This seasonally inundated area typically dries in the late spring or early summer months.
At the south end of the project site there is a narrow ditch (approximately 4 feet wide) that likely used to drain the project site. This ditch, for the most part, has been filled in over the years by residential development that occurred along Anza Street. The ditch does not occur to the east of the project site but remains at the southwest corner of the project site as a narrow, 1-foot elevated ditch that turns to upland immediately west of the project site. Owing to filling over the years stormwater has to fill to at least 2 feet deep on the City property and 0.5 to 1-foot deep on the project site to drain off site to the City property via overland flows through a confined area at the backside of residences on Anza Street.
The ditch on the south end of the project site is discontinuous and is not a natural tributary.
Rather is a man-made ditch that likely was created in a past era in an attempt to drain the project site and the City property. Over the many decades of surrounding land development, this ditch no longer has continuity with a natural drainage features except during episodic storms and winters. Rather rainwater is simply retained on the City property immediately west of the project site and this water backs up onto the project site that both function as a low sink. Accumulated stormwater eventually evaporates, percolates into subsoils, and/or is removed through evapotranspiration. It is likely that the seasonal wetland on the project site completely dries in most years by early to mid-summer.
7. POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES Special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site are discussed below. Special-status plant species known to occur within two miles of the project site are listed in Table 1. Special-status wildlife species known to occur within two miles of the project site are listed in Table 2. Figure 4 shows California Natural Diversity Record Locations of Special-Status Plant and Animals within two miles of the project site. Below we provide the definition of what constitutes a special-status species. We also discuss those special-status species known from the vicinity of the project site.
7.1 Special-Status Species Definition
For purposes of this analysis, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively) or other regulations, and species that are considered rare by the scientific community (for example, the CNPS). Special-status species are defined as:
plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1 et seq.) or the
11.f
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
4 Monk & associates
FESA (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species);
plants and animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 57533-57547, October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §2068); plants and animals that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380) that may include species not found on either State or Federal Endangered Species lists; Plants occurring on Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 of CNPS’ electronic Inventory (CNPS 2001). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Department) recognizes that Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of cases, would qualify for State listing, and the Department requests their inclusion in EIRs. Plants occurring on CNPS Ranks 3 and 4 are "plants about which more information is necessary," and "plants of limited distribution," respectively (CNPS 2001).
Such plants may be included as special-status species on a case by case basis due to local significance or recent biological information (more on CNPS Rank species below); migratory nongame birds of management concern listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The list 1995; Office of Migratory Bird Management; Washington D.C.; Sept. 1995); animals that are designated as "species of special concern" by the Department (2014); Animal species that are “fully protected” in California (Fish and Game Codes 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515).
Bat Species that are designated on the Western Bat Working Group’s (WBWG) Regional Bat Species Priority Matrix as: “RED OR HIGH.” This priority is justified by the WBWG as follows: “Based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and known threats, this designation should result in these bat species being considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation actions. Information about status and threats to most species could result in effective conservation actions being implemented should a commitment to management exist. These species are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment.”
Species that are provided “Ranks” in the CNDDB (Rare Find Application) that equate to a rarity status as defined in Appendix A of the CNDDB Rare Find Definitions. Ranks that indicate that a species is “rare” and should be afford protections pursuant to §15382 of the CEQA include “Global Ranks” listed as G1, G2, and G3. Similarly, “State Ranks” that should be afforded protections pursuant to §15382 of the CEQA include S1, S2, and S3 species.
11.f
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
5 Monk & associates
In the paragraphs below we provide further definitions of legal status as they pertain to the special-status species discussed in this report or in the attached tables.
Federal Endangered or Threatened Species. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the FESA is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to take a Federal listed Endangered or Threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the Service prior to initiating the take.
State Threatened Species. A species listed as Threatened under the state Endangered Species Act (§2050 of California Fish and Game Code) is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to “take” a state listed Threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the Department prior to initiating the “take.”
California Species of Special Concern. These are species in which their California breeding populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible.
This designation affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15380), some species of special concern could be considered “rare.” Pursuant to its rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species could be considered a “significant effect on the environment” (§15382). Thus, species of special concern must be considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency.
CNPS Rank Species. The CNPS maintains an “Inventory” of special status plant species. This inventory has four lists of plants with varying rarity. These lists are: Rank 1, Rank 2, Rank 3, and Rank 4. Although plants on these lists have no formal legal protection (unless they are also state or federal listed species), the Department requests the inclusion of Rank 1 species in environmental documents. In addition, other state and local agencies may request the inclusion of species on other lists as well. The Rank 1 and 2 species are defined below:
Rank 1A – Presumed extinct in California;
Rank 1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere; Rank 2B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
All of the plants constituting Rank 1B meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing (CNPS 2001). Rank 2 species are rare in California, but more common elsewhere. Ranks 3 and 4 contain species about which there is some concern, and are reviewed by the Department and maintained on “watch lists.” Additionally, in 2006 CNPS updated their lists to include “threat code extensions” for each list.
For example, Rank 1B species would now be categorized as Rank 1B.1, Rank 1B.2, or Rank 1B.3. These threat codes are defined as follows:
.1 is considered “seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)”;
11.f
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
6 Monk & associates
.2 is “fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened)”; .3 is “not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known).”
Under the CEQA review process only CNPS Rank 1 and 2 species are considered since these are the only CNPS species that meet CEQA’s definition of “rare” or “endangered.” Impacts to Rank 3 and 4 species are not regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA.
Fully Protected Birds. Fully protected birds, such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle, are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time.
7.2 Potentially Occurring Special Status Plant Species
Table 1 lists special-status plant species that are known to occur within two miles of the project site. These plants occur in a variety of habitats, including coastal sand dune, coastal scrub, and grassland. These habitats do not occur on the project site. Thus, in general it is M&A’s conclusion that none would occur on this urban infill project site.
7.2.1 MONTEREY CYPRESS
Monterey cypress trees occur on the north end of the project site. There are two native populations (only) located along 17-Mile Drive and at Point Lobos. These Monterey peninsula trees are designated by CNPS as Rank 1B.2. , but widely planted Monterey cypress along the Coast are not.
7.3 Potentially Occurring Special-Status Animal Species Table 2 presents a list of special-status animal species known from the City of Pacifica area. This Table provides reasons for why the locally known special-status animals would not occur on the project site. Of the 10 considered for this project site, there is no suitable habitat on or adjacent to the project site that would be likely to support any of these species. Below we discuss those species that require further justification for submittal than is provided in Table 2.
7.3.1 SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKE
The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) is a slender multi-colored subspecies of the common garter snake. Designated as an endangered subspecies since the year 1967 it is endemic to San Mateo County and the extreme northern part of coastal Santa Cruz County in California. The Service has not designated critical habitat for this snake and thus the project site is not within designated critical habitat.
This subspecies of the common garter snake is found in scattered wetland areas on the San Francisco Peninsula from approximately the northern boundary of San Mateo County south along the eastern and western bases of the Santa Cruz Mountains, at least to the Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir, and along the Pacific coast south to Año Nuevo Point, and thence to Waddell Creek in Santa Cruz County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that many locations that previously had healthy populations of garter snakes are now in decline due to land development pressure and the filling of wetlands in San Mateo County over the last sixty years.
11.f
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
7 Monk & associates
The snake’s preferred habitat is a densely vegetated pond near an open hillside where it can sun, feed, and find cover in rodent burrows; however, markedly less suitable habitat can be successfully used. This subspecies avoids brackish marsh areas because its preferred prey, the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), cannot survive in saline water.
Emergent and bankside vegetation such as cattails (Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus / Schoenoplectus spp.), and spike rushes (Juncus spp. and Eleocharis spp.) apparently are preferred and used for cover. The zone between stream and pond habitats and grasslands or bank sides is characteristically utilized for basking while nearby dense vegetation or water often provide escape cover. The subspecies occasionally uses floating algal or rush mats, when available.
San Francisco garter snakes forage extensively in aquatic habitats. Adult snakes feed primarily on California red-legged frogs, which are federally listed as threatened. They may also feed on juvenile bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), but they are unable to consume adults; in fact, adult bullfrogs prey on juvenile garter snakes, and may be a contributing factor in the population decline of the San Francisco garter snake. Newborn and juvenile San Francisco garter snakes depend heavily upon Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla) as prey. If newly metamorphosed Pacific treefrogs are not available, the young garter snakes may not survive. San Francisco garter snakes are one of the few animals capable of ingesting the toxic California newt (Taricha torosa) without incurring sickness or death.
In Pacifica within 2.5 miles of the project site, there are 3 Department CNDDB records for the San Francisco garter snake. There is an occurrence at Sharp Park Golf Course/Laguna Salada, upper Sharp Park and Calera Creek (CNDDB # 9) at Laguna Salada. There is a lake and extensive freshwater aquatic habitat at this location that supports this snake. CNDDB #45 is from along Calera Creek on the south side of Mori Point. This has been a known site since the 1970s.
Calera Creek and its biota including prey base is critical to supporting the San Francisco garter snake at this location. CNDDB # 11 is from San Andres Lake approximately 3.2 miles east of the project site and is the nearest prominent record location for San Francisco garter snake. Again there is a large fresh water lake which supports this endangered snake species.
The seasonal wetland on the project site is relatively very small and likely dries in the spring or early summer. It does not maintain key prey species of the San Francisco garter snake which include the red-legged frog and occasionally the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). No Ranid frogs (which include the California red-legged frog and bullfrog) are expected to occur on the project site. While Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra)[formerly Pacific tree frog] likely breeds seasonally in wetland on the project site none were observed during the site investigation and thus this frog if present, would only consist of a very small number of individuals and could not sustain the San Francisco garter snake.
As the project site is complete surrounded by development (is an urban infill) there is no realistic likelihood that the San Francisco garter snake would migrate to the project site. There are also no adjacent marsh habitats that could support this snake. Accordingly, M&A concludes that the San
11.f
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
8 Monk & associates
Francisco garter snake does not occur on the property and would not be impacted by proposed development of the property.
7.3.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG
The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) was federally listed as threatened on May 23, 1996 (Federal Register 61: 25813-25833) and as such is protected pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act. On March 16, 2010 the USFWS issued the final designation for California red-legged frog Critical Habitat (USFWS 2010). The 2010 Critical Habitat maps (Federal Register dated March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51:12815-12864) shows that the project site falls well outside of mapped Critical Habitat SMN-1 of this frog. The California redlegged frog is also a state “species of special concern.” The California red-legged frog is typically found in ponds, slow-flowing portions of perennial and intermittent streams that maintain water in the summer months. This frog is also found in hillside seeps that maintain pool environments or saturated soils throughout the summer months.
Populations probably cannot be maintained if all surface water disappears (i.e., no available surface water for egg laying and larval development habitat). Larval California red-legged frogs require 11-20 weeks of permanent water to reach metamorphosis (i.e., to change from a tadpole into a frog), in water depths of 10 to 20 inches (USFWS 2002). Riparian vegetation such as willows and emergent vegetation such as cattails are preferred red-legged frog habitats, though not necessary for this species to be present. Populations of California red-legged frog will be reduced in size or eliminated from ponds supporting non-native species such as bullfrog, Centrarchid fish species (such as sunfish, bluegill, or largemouth bass), and signal and red swamp crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii, respectively), all of which are known California red-legged frog predators. However, the presence of these non-native species does not preclude the presence of the California red-legged frog.
California red-legged frogs also use upland habitats for migration and dispersal. The USFWS Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog states that frog overland excursions via uplands can vary between 0.25 mile up to 3 miles during the course of a wet season, and that frogs “have been observed to make long-distance movements that are straight-line, point to point migrations rather than using corridors for moving in between habitats” (USFWS 2002). The information presented in the USFWS’ Recovery Plan was taken from a publication by Bulger et al. (2003) that recounts a study in coastal redwoods in Santa Cruz area. M&A believes that such overland straight-line migrations are primarily limited to periods of heavy rainfall or during periods when ambient conditions exhibit high moisture levels such as in fog belts along the coast. Working in Pointe Reyes National Seashore on the coast of California, Fellers and Kleeman (2007) found approximately 31 percent of California red-legged frogs moved more than 30 meters from their breeding sites and about 69 percent moved less than 30 meters from their breeding site during seasonal movement periods. Similarly, Bulger et al. (2003) found that 60 percent of their radio tagged frogs stayed within 30 meters of their breeding sites.
In locations that are characterized by hot and seasonally dry climates, the California red-legged frog is inclined to stay closer to its aquatic environments or will not migrate. Tatarian (2005) who studied an inland population of California red-legged frogs in eastern Contra Costa County where the climate is far drier than the coastal environment, found that all movements started after
11.f
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
9 Monk & associates
the first 0.5 cm of rain in the fall, with more terrestrial movements being made in the fall prebreeding season (57%) than in the winter breeding season (32%) or spring post-breeding season (11%). Tatarian (op. cit.) also found that California red-legged frogs moved greater average distances aquatically (84.6 m) than terrestrially (27.7 m). Greater terrestrial distances were moved in the pre-breeding season (35.2 m) than in the breeding season (15.5 m) or post-breeding season (16.3 m) with the majority of movements occurring for only one of the 3-4 day survey periods. The majority of frogs (57%) were position faithful within a pool, indicating they did not migrate at all. These data suggest that long forays across the landscape found in coastal populations are less likely in dry inland locations.
The USFWS Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog states that populations are “most likely to persist where multiple breeding areas are embedded within a matrix of habitats used for dispersal.” “The primary constituent elements for California red-legged frogs are aquatic and upland areas where suitable breeding and non-breeding habitat is interspersed throughout the landscape and is interconnected by unfragmented dispersal habitat” (USFWS 2002).
7.3.3 SALTMARSH COMMON YELLOWTHROAT
The saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) is a California species of special concern. This warbler is found in freshwater marshes, coastal swales, riparian thickets, brackish marshes, salt marshes, and the edges of disturbed weed fields and grasslands that border these wet habitats. In the San Francisco Bay region, about 60 percent of the population breeds in brackish marsh, 20 percent breeds in riparian woodland, 10 percent in freshwater marsh, 5 percent in salt marsh, and 5 percent in upland vegetation (Hobson et al. 1986). Nests are well concealed, mostly on or near the ground in grass tussocks, low herbaceous vegetation, cattails, rushes, and bushes generally to about five feet above the ground, though many are below six inches (Shuford 1993).
The closest known record for this species is located 1.8 miles north of the project site (CNDDB Record # 5). The willow trees on back of project site and on adjacent sliver of property owned by the City could provide migration habitat for the saltmarsh common yellowthroat. However, the willow habitat only occurs in a limited area and is an urban setting. Accordingly, this willow habitat is not expected to support nesting saltmarsh common yellowthroats. However out of an abundance of caution, it is recommended that preconstruction survey be conducted prior to site grading or other construction work if this work occurs between February 1 and September 1st (the Department designated nesting season for birds) to ensure that if this species nests near the project site, that is will not be affected by the proposed project. If an active nest is discovered, a protective buffer should be established by a qualified ornithologist that is of sufficient size to keep the nesting birds, their eggs/young from being harmed by disturbance associated with implementation of a construction project.
8. HERITAGE TREES
Chapter 12 of the Pacifica Municipal Code (Preservation of Heritage Trees) stipulates regulations designed to preserve and protect heritage trees on private or city-owned property. In general, heritage trees are defined as any trees within the City of Pacifica, exclusive of
11.f
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
10 Monk & associates
eucalyptus, which have a trunk with a circumference of fifty (50”) inches (approximately sixteen (16”) inches in diameter) or more, measured at twenty-four (24”) inches above the natural grade.
It is often necessary to obtain a permit when performing work on or engaging in construction around heritage trees. The project site supports Monterey cypress trees at its north end around the existing residence that likely are heritage trees. To remove a heritage tree, it is necessary to obtain a tree removal permit. Tree removal permits may be applied for at the City of Pacifica Planning Department. Tree protection plans are required when engaging in new construction within the drip-line of a heritage tree. The plan must be prepared by a qualified arborist, horticulturist, landscape architect or other qualified person.
9. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS This section provides a discussion of those laws and regulations that are in place to protect native wildlife, fish, and plants. Under each law we discuss their pertinence to proposed development of the project site.
9.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) forms the basis for the federal protection of threatened or endangered plants, insects, fish and wildlife. FESA gives regulatory authority to the Service for federally listed terrestrial species and non-anadromous fish. The NMFS has regulatory authority over federally listed marine mammals and anadromous fish.
The project site is an in-fill site completely surrounded by commercial and high density urban development. The project site’s location within a commercial/urban area, bordered by busy roads, isolates the project site from extant, naturalized habitats and removes any wildlife corridor value. As such, there are no areas of the project site that provide suitable habitat for federally listed plants or animals. There are no streams or rivers on the project site. Thus, there are no habitats that would facilitate fish species or other aquatic species moving to/from the project site.
No impacts to federally listed species are expected from development of the project site (See Tables 1 and 2).
9.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass, shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, wading birds, seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers, swallows, etc.).
As long as there is no direct mortality of species protected pursuant to this Act caused by development of the site, there should be no constraints to development of the site. To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all active nest sites would have to be avoided while such birds were nesting. Upon completion of nesting, the project could commence as otherwise planned.
11.f
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
11 Monk & associates
To avoid impacts to nesting birds protected pursuant to the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act it is recommended that preconstruction survey be conducted prior to site grading, vegetation clearing, or other construction work if this work occurs between February 1 and September 1st (the Department designated nesting season for birds) to ensure that nesting birds are not impacted by these activities. If an active nest is discovered, a protective buffer should be established by a qualified ornithologist that is of sufficient size to keep the nesting birds, their eggs/young from being harmed by disturbance associated with implementation of a construction project.
9.3 California Endangered Species Act
In 1984, the state legislated the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code §2050). The basic policy of CESA is to conserve and enhance endangered species and their habitats.
The project site is a highly disturbed, graded lot; this is an in-fill development project. The surrounding landscape is urban and commercial development. The project site’s location within a commercial area, bordered by busy roads, isolates the project site from extant, naturalized habitats and removes any wildlife corridor value. As such, there are no areas of the project site that provide suitable habitat for state-listed plants or animals. No impacts to state-listed species are expected from the proposed project (See Tables 1 and 2).
9.4 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the “take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered “take.” Such a take would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act).
All raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their nests, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5). Additionally, “fully protected” birds, such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). “Fully protected” birds may not be taken or possessed (that is, kept in captivity) at any time.
The only nesting habitat for raptors would be the Monterey cypress trees on the north end of the project site. No old nests were observed by M&A during our site investigation, but raptors are mobile and so preconstruction surveys are warranted prior to tree removal or disturbance on the project site to ensure that the project will not impact raptors. The project site also provides habitat for common passerine birds (i.e., “perching birds), and indeed occurs in all urban and commercial areas in addition to native or naturalized habitats. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys by a qualified ornithologist are recommended if grading or site preparation would occur between February 1 and September 1 in any year (the Department of Fish and Wildlife Recognized nesting season). Any active nests that are found during preconstruction nesting surveys would have to be avoided by the project. Suitable non-disturbance buffers would have to be established around nest sites until the nesting cycle is complete.
11.f
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
12 Monk & associates
9.5 Protected Amphibians
Under Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1, Chapter 5, §41. Protected Amphibians), protected amphibians, such as the California tiger salamander, may only be taken under special permit from the Department issued pursuant to Sections 650 and 670.7 of these regulations.
No special-status or protected amphibians would be found on or adjacent to the project site. As such, no significant adverse impacts are expected to occur to protected amphibians from implementation of the proposed project.
10. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND STATE
This section presents an overview of the criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Department to determine those areas within a project area that would be subject to their regulation.
10.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting
10.1.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. §1251(a)). Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the disposal of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). This requires project applicants to obtain authorization from the Corps prior to discharging dredged or fill materials into any water of the United States.
In the Federal Register "waters of the United States" are defined as, “...all interstate waters including interstate wetlands...intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), wetlands, [and] natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce...” (33 CFR Section 328.3).
Limits of Corps’ jurisdiction:
(a) Territorial Seas. The limit of jurisdiction in the territorial seas is measured from the baseline in a seaward direction a distance of three nautical miles. (See 33 CFR 329.12) (b) Tidal Waters of the United States. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters:
(1) Extends to the high tide line, or
(2) When adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limits identified in paragraph (c) of this section. (c) Non-Tidal Waters of the United States. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters:
(1) In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or
11.f
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
13 Monk & associates
(2) When adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands. (3) When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the wetland.
Section 404 jurisdiction in "other waters" such as lakes, ponds, and streams, extends to the upward limit of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or the upward extent of any adjacent wetland. The OHWM on a non-tidal water is:
the "line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas" (33 CFR Section 328.3[e]).
Wetlands are defined as: “...those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR Section 328.8 [b]). Wetlands usually must possess hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plants adapted to inundated or saturated conditions), wetland hydrology (e.g., topographic low areas, exposed water tables, stream channels), and hydric soils (i.e., soils that are periodically or permanently saturated, inundated or flooded) to be regulated by the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
10.1.1.1 Significant Nexus of Tributaries
On December 2, 2008, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued joint guidance on implementing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v.
United States and Carabell v. United States (herein referred to simply as “Rapanos”) (Corps 2008b) which address the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. In this joint guidance these agencies provide guidance on where they will assert jurisdiction over waters of the U.S.
The EPA and Corps will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
Traditional navigable waters
Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters
Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (for example, typically three months).
Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.
The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and
Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.
11.f
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment F - IS/MND with Appendices (4980 : Appeal of Planning Commission approval of 570 Crespi Mixed-use Project) Biological Site Analysis
570 Crespi Drive Project, Pacifica, California
14 Monk & associates
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters; and
Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors.
10.1.1.2 Isolated Areas Excluded from Section 404 Jurisdiction In addition to areas that may be exempt from Section 404 jurisdiction, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 [2001]). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a navigable “Waters of the U.S.,” and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.
10.1.1.3 Permitting Corps Jurisdictional Areas
To remain in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, project proponents and property owners (applicants) are required to be permitted by the Corps prior to discharging or otherwise impacting waters of the United States. In many cases, the Corps must visit a proposed project area (to conduct a “jurisdictional determination”) to confirm the extent of area falling under their jurisdiction prior to authorizing any permit for that project area. Typically, at the time the jurisdictional determination is conducted, applicants (or their representative) will discuss the appropriate permit application that would be filed with the Corps for permitting the proposed impact(s) to “waters of the United States.”
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps normally provides two alternatives for permitting impacts to the type of “waters of the United States” found in the project area. The first alternative would be to use Nationwide Permit(s) (NWP). The second alternative is to apply to the Corps for an Individual Permit (33 CFR Section 235.5(2)(b)). The application process for Individual Permits is extensive and includes public interest review procedures (i.e., public notice and receipt of public comments) and must contain an “alternatives analysis” that is prepared pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(b)). The alternatives analysis is also typically reviewed by the federal EPA and thus brings another resource agency into the permitting framework. Both the Corps and EPA take the initial viewpoint that there are practical alternatives to the proposed project if there would be impacts to waters of the U.S., and the proposed permitted action is not a water dependent project (e.g. a pier or a dredging project).
Alternative analyses therefore must provide convincing reasons that the proposed permitted impacts are unavoidable. Individual Permits may be available for use in the event that discharges into regulated waters fail to meet conditions of NWP(s).
NWPs are a type of general permit administered by the Corps and issued on a nationwide basis that authorize minor activities that affect Corps regulated waters. Under NWP, if certain conditions are met, the specified activities can take place without the need for an individual or regional permit from the Corps (33 CFR, Section 235.5[c][2]). In order to use NWP(s), a project must meet 27 general nationwide permit conditions, and all specific conditions pertaining to the NWP being used (as presented at 33 CFR Section 330, Appendices A and C). It is also important