Tree #3 is a Monterey cypress located along the frontage of the project site with a DBH of 39 inches. The tree is in fair health and condition; however, the tree has many broken branches, and the canopy has been heavily pruned on one side.
According to Pacifica Municipal Code Section 4-12.08, heritage trees include any trees that are of the species coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Monterey pine, or coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), which have a trunk diameter of 12 inches or more; or any trees that are of the species toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) which have a trunk diameter of four inches or more at breast height. The Director of the Department of Public Works may also designate heritage trees that meet any of the following criteria: tree(s) of historic value; specimen tree(s) of any species; any tree of substantial size of its species; age; or significant habitat value. In addition, according to Section 4-12.02, protected trees include all trees, with the exception of eucalyptus or invasive species, which have a trunk with a DBH of 12 inches or greater, any heritage trees, and any grove of trees. Therefore, Tree #2 is considered a heritage tree pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Section 4-12.08, and Tree #1 and Tree #3 are considered protected trees pursuant to Section 4-12.02 of the Pacific Municipal Code.
4.1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
A number of federal, State, and local policies provide the regulatory framework that guides the protection of biological resources. The following discussion summarizes those laws that are most relevant to biological resources in the vicinity of the project site.
Federal Regulations
The following are the federal environmental laws and policies relevant to biological resources:
Federal Endangered Species Act
Under the FESA, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce have joint authority to list a species as threatened or endangered (16 U.S. Code [USC] Section 1533[c]). Two federal agencies oversee the FESA: the USFWS has jurisdiction over plants, wildlife, and resident fish, while the NMFS has jurisdiction over anadromous fish and marine fish and mammals. Section 7 of the FESA mandates that federal agencies consult with the USFWS and NMFS to ensure that federal agency actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for listed species.
Section 10 requires the issuance of an “incidental take” permit before any public or private action may be taken that could take an endangered or threatened species. The permit requires preparation and implementation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that would offset the take of individuals that may occur, incidental to implementation of a proposed project, by providing for the protection of the affected species.
Pursuant to the requirements of the FESA, a federal agency reviewing a project within the jurisdiction of the agency must determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species may be present on-site and whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC Section 1536[3], [4]).
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by a number of state and federal laws. The federal MBTA prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Interior. Section 3503.5 of the CFGC states, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by the code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Waters of the U.S. and the Clean Water Act
The USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). “Discharge of fill material” is defined as the addition of fill material into waters of the U.S., including but not limited to the following: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for the construction; site-development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 328.2[f]). In addition, Section 401 of the CWA (Title 33 of USC, Section 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the U.S. to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards.
Waters of the U.S. include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows. Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR Section 328.3[b]).
Furthermore, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. can be defined by exhibiting a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (33 CFR Section 328.3[e]).
In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the term “waters of the United States” as understood in wetland permitting in its decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651, 143 S.Ct. 1322 (2023). The Court’s decision has been generally understood to contract the legal jurisdiction previously asserted by the USACE. In its opinion, the Court held that the “waters” protected under the CWA are limited to “geographic[al] features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’” and to adjacent wetlands that are “indistinguishable” from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection, though “temporary interruptions in surface connection may sometimes occur because of phenomena like low tides or dry spells.”
On August 29, 2023, in response to the Sackett decision, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a final rulemaking that revises the definition of "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) within USACE and USEPA regulations. The adopted document is known as the WOTUS Rule. The WOTUS Rule defines "waters of the United States" to include the following:
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
x Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters (Jurisdictional Waters);
x Impoundments of Jurisdictional Waters (Jurisdictional Impoundments); x Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing tributaries to either Jurisdictional Waters or Jurisdictional Impoundments (Jurisdictional Tributaries); x Wetlands having a continuous surface connection to either Jurisdictional Waters, Jurisdictional Impoundments, or Jurisdictional Tributaries (Jurisdictional Wetlands); and x Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing intrastate lakes and ponds with a continuous surface connection to (but are not themselves) a Jurisdictional Water, Jurisdictional Impoundment, Jurisdictional Tributary, or Jurisdictional Wetland.
State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to biological resources:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDFW administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect fish and wildlife resources under the CFGC, such as CESA (CFGC Section 2050, et seq.), Fully Protected Species (CFGC Section 3511) and the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement Program (CFGC Sections 1600 to 1616). Such regulations are summarized in the following sections.
California Endangered Species Act
The State of California enacted CESA in 1984. CESA is similar to the FESA but pertains to Statelisted endangered and threatened species. CESA requires State agencies to consult with CDFW when preparing CEQA documents to ensure that the State lead agency actions do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. CESA directs agencies to consult with CDFW on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs CDFW to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows CDFW to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with conserving the species. Agencies can approve a project that affects a listed species if they determine that “overriding considerations” exist; however, the agencies are prohibited from approving projects that would result in the extinction of a listed species.
CESA prohibits the taking of State-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species.
CDFW exercises authority over mitigation projects involving State-listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. CDFW may authorize taking if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. CDFW requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines.
Fish and Game Code Section 3505
Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the CFGC, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by CDFW.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
Lake or Streambed Alteration Program
The CDFW is responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing California’s fish, wildlife, and native plant resources. To meet this responsibility, the CDFG, Section 1602, requires notification to CDFW of any proposed activity that may substantially modify a river, stream, or lake.
Notification is required by any person, business, state or local government agency, or public utility that proposes an activity that will:
x Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; x Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or
x Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.
For the purposes of Section 1602, rivers, streams, and lakes must flow at least intermittently through a bed or channel. If notification is required and CDFW believes the proposed activity is likely to result in adverse harm to the natural environment, the CDFW will require that the parties enter into a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.
CDFW Species of Special Concern
In addition to formal listings under FESA and CESA, plant and wildlife species receive additional consideration during the CEQA process. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of Species of Special Concern developed by CDFW. Species whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened are tracked by CDFW in California.
Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Currently 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations, emergencies, and after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and USEPA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, in order for a USACE federal permit applicant to conduct any activity which may result in discharge into navigable waters, they must provide a certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) that such discharge will comply with the State water quality standards. The RWQCB has a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands in effect and typically requires mitigation for all impacts to wetlands before the RWQCB will issue water quality certification.
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000- 14920), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State’s waters. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit (i.e., a Nationwide Permit [NWP] from the USACE), the project may still require review and approval by the RWQCB, in light of the approval of new NWPs on March 9, 2000 and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) vs. USACE.
The RWQCB in response to the above case, issued guidance for regulation of discharges to “isolated” water on June 25, 2004. The guidance states:
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
Discharges subject to Clean Water Act section 404 receive a level of regulatory review and protection by the USACE and are also subject to streambed alteration agreements issued by the CDFW; whereas discharges to waters of the State subject to SWANCC receive no federal oversight and usually fall out of CDFW jurisdiction. Absent of RWQCB attention, such discharges will generally go entirely unregulated. Therefore, to the extent that staffing constraints require the RWQCB to regulate some dredge and fill discharges of similar extent, severity, and permanence to federally-protected waters of similar value. Dredging, filling, or excavation of “isolated” waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the State, and prospective dischargers are required to submit a report of waste discharge to the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of Porter-Cologne.
When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the “beneficial uses” associated with waters of the State. Generally, the RWQCB defines beneficial uses to include all of the resources, services and qualities of aquatic ecosystems and underground aquifers that benefit the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect the beneficial uses by requiring the integration of water quality control measures into projects that will result in discharge into waters of the State. For most construction projects, RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). In many cases, proper use of BMPs, including bioengineering detention ponds, grassy swales, sand filters, modified roof techniques, drains, and other features, will speed project approval from RWQCB.
Development setbacks from creeks are also requested by RWQCB as they often lead to less creek-related impacts in the future.
Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental laws and policies relevant to biological resources:
City of Pacifica General Plan 2040
The following policies from the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040 related to biological resources are applicable to the proposed project:
Conservation Element
Guiding Policies
Policy CO-G-7 Wildlife and Critical Habitat. Conserve and protect indigenous threatened, endangered, and other special status species by preserving critical habitat.
Policy CO-G-8 Coastal Environment and Special Status Communities. Conserve and protect beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, and special status communities, particularly the Coastal bluff scrub on the northern bluffs.
Policy CO-G-10 Trees. Conserve trees and encourage native forestation and planting of appropriate trees and vegetation.
Policy CO-G-11 Other Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Protect other potential ESHAs, high habitat value areas, and wildlife movement corridors from development that would significantly disrupt habitat values.
Implementing Policies
Policy CO-I-26 Protection of Biological Resources with New Development. Protect sensitive habitat areas and special-status species through implementation of the following measures:
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
1) Discourage development and/or buildout in critical habitat of special status species during the development review process.
2) Pre-construction plant and wildlife surveys: Project applicants shall engage a qualified biologist to conduct presence/absence biological surveys for sensitive plant and wildlife species prior to construction adjacent to or within identified special status communities and other sensitive areas identified in Figure 7-3 of the proposed General Plan. If special status species are identified, the qualified biologist shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and establish no-disturbance buffers around avian nests, bat roosts, and sensitive plants to avoid disturbance and direct impacts to these resources during construction. If no special status species are detected during surveys, then construction-related activities may proceed.
Nesting birds, in particular, are protected by two means; they receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and nesting raptors (in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes) are protected under the State Fish and Game Code, §3503.5.
3) Require biological resource assessments be conducted prior to approval for any development within 300 feet of creeks, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat areas shown on Figure 7-3 of the proposed General Plan.
4) Require on-site monitoring of biological resources by a qualified biologist throughout the duration of construction activity.
5 Require compensatory mitigation by means of habitat preservation, restoration, and enhancement; for the loss of any critical habitat and/or special status communities.
Policy CO-I-30 Fuel Modification. Ensure that new development is sited and designed to minimize the need for fuel modification and vegetation clearance in order to avoid or minimize the disturbance or destruction of habitat and existing hydrology while still providing for fire safety as necessitated by the North County Fire Authority’s Vegetation Management Program. Prohibit new development that would require fuel modification within ESHAs.
Policy CO-I-33 Construction during Nesting Season. If site work or construction occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), then preconstruction breeding bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to any site disturbance to ensure that no nests will be disturbed or destroyed during Project implementation. If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction activities, then the biologist shall create a no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around passerine nests and a 500 foot buffer around raptor nests. Workfree buffer zones shall be maintained until after the breeding season or until after the qualified biologist determines the young have fledged (usually late June through mid-July).
Policy CO-I-35 Protection of the Californian Red-Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake during Construction. To minimize disturbance, require all grading activity within 100 feet of identified aquatic habitat shall be conducted during the dry season (May 1 and October 15) to protect California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. A qualified biologist shall conduct IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
presence/absence surveys for California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake prior to construction in or adjacent to riparian areas, grasslands near ponds/wetlands, or other sensitive habitat. Any individuals identified shall be treated in consultation with USFWS. Construction shall follow accepted procedures for exclusion and avoidance of California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake and their habitat. Additionally, the biologist shall supervise the installation of exclusion fencing along the boundaries of the work area, shall conduct environmental awareness training for construction workers, and shall be present during initial vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities.
Policy CO-I-36 Invasive Plant Species. Prohibit the use of invasive plant species (i.e., any California Invasive Plant Council (CalIPC)-listed species with a status of high or moderate, or identified such as locally threatened under the limited, alert, or watch status).
Policy CO-I-38 Biological Productivity. Maintain—and where feasible, restore—the biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, and lakes in order to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and to protect human health.
Policy CO-I-39 Heritage Trees. Update the Heritage Tree ordinance to improve ease of City administration and clarity for applicants and surrounding residents. Consider a canopy goal for heritage and non-heritage trees as part of the Heritage Tree ordinance update or other updates to the City’s tree regulations.
City of Pacifica Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance
Title 4, Chapter 12 of the City’s Municipal Code (Tree Preservation) stipulates regulations designed to preserve and protect heritage trees on private or city-owned property. In general, heritage trees are defined as any trees that are of the species coast live oak, valley oak, California buckeye, Monterey pine, or coast redwood, which have a trunk diameter of 12 inches or more; or any trees that are of the species toyon which have a trunk diameter of four inches or more at breast height. The Director of the Department of Public Works may also designate heritage trees that meet any of the following criteria: tree(s) of historic value; specimen tree(s) of any species; any tree of substantial size of its species; age; or significant habitat value. In addition, according to Section 4-12.02 of the Pacifica Municipal Code, protected trees include all trees, with the exception of eucalyptus or invasive species, which have a trunk with a DBH of 12 inches or greater, all heritage trees, and any grove of trees. The City requires a Tree Removal Permit to remove a protected tree, including all heritage trees, or City tree.
4.1.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to biological resources. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040, and professional judgment, a significant impact related to biological resources would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
x 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 CDFW or USFWS; x Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS;
x 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.
x Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
x Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
x Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A) determined that development of the proposed project would result in no impact related to the following:
x Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
For the reasons cited in the Initial Study (Section IV, Biological Resources), the potential impacts associated with the above are not analyzed further in this EIR.
Method of Analysis
The information contained in the analysis presented herein is primarily based on the Biological Constraints Analysis (Appendix C) and Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources and Effects Analysis (Appendix D) prepared by WBC.
Biological Constraints Analysis
A Biological Constraints Analysis report was first prepared by Monk & Associates, Inc. in 2014 for the single parcel located at 570 Crespi Drive.11 However, the proposed project now also includes the adjacent parcel at 540 Crespi Drive (identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 022- 162-420 and 022-162-310), which is currently owned by the City of Pacifica.
A peer review of the 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis conducted by Madrone Ecological Consulting recommended several information items to enable the City to make planning decisions 11 Monk & Associates, Inc. Biological Constraints Analysis 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica San Mateo County, California (APNS: 022-162-310) (~1.7 Acres). October 8, 2014.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
with regard to biological resources.12 The An updated Biological Constraints Analysis prepared by WBC in August 2020 referenced herein revises revised the original report based on peer review recommendations from Madrone Ecological Consulting and the additional parcel.13 Although the foregoing reports were prepared in advance of the EIR, the report was the beginning of an ongoing analysis of the project site over time, including peer review processes and recent supplemental reports. WBC also provided supplemental responses to public comments from the CDFW and peer review comments from the City of Pacifica. The Biological Constraints Analysis updated in 2023 referenced herein updates the 2020 report; addresses changes and revisions to the proposed project; expands the study area to include an additional area located adjacent to the City parcel that is included as part of the proposed project; and consolidates responses to specific issues raised by the City and by the public during preparation and public review of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.14
As part of the updated Biological Constraints Analysis, prior to conducting field data collection, potential occurrence of special-status species within the project site was evaluated by first determining which special-status species occur in the project site’s vicinity through a literature and database search. Database searches for known occurrences of special-status species focused on the five-mile radius surrounding the project site. The following sources were reviewed by WBC to determine which special-status plant and wildlife species have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the project site:
x CNDDB records of special-status plant, animal species and natural communities documented as occurring within five miles of the study area; x USFWS IPaC database for federally listed species and migratory birds; x CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants;
x A sequence of aerial photo imagery on Google Earth;
x Montara Mountain U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map; x Topographic survey map of the study area; and
x CEQA documentation of the City’s recently completed Wet Weather Equalization Basin, which is adjacent to the study area.
In addition, WBC conferred with Mr. Patrick Kobernus of Coast Ridge Ecology, who acted as the City’s biological compliance monitor during construction of the City’s Wet Weather Equalization Basin in 2017-2018, during which Mr. Kobernus made direct observations of biological resources in the study area.
A reconnaissance-level survey for biological resources of the study area was conducted by WBC on July 19, 2020. The survey consisted of walking as much of the study area as was physically accessible (dense and impenetrable willow scrub is limiting over a large portion of the study area), and making observations of habitats and plant and wildlife species on and adjacent to the study area. Additional site visits to observe and document biological and wetland resources occurred on July 19, 2020; September 16, 2020; April 4. 2022; June 27, 2022; December 31, 2022; and April 5, 2023.
12 Madrone Ecological Consulting. Peer review for the proposed 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. April 20, 2020. 13 Wood Biological Consulting. Biological Constraints Analysis – Updated. August 17, 2020. 14 Wood Biological Consulting. Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update. August 21, 2023.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources Aquatic resources within the study area were assessed by WBC on July 19, 2020. As part of the Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources conducted for the proposed project, WBC reviewed relevant background information, including the 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis, the 2020 peer review, a sequence of aerial photo imagery on Google Earth, the National Wetlands Inventory, California Aquatic Resource Inventory, Soil Conservation Service, Montara Mountain U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, a topographic survey map of the parcels, and environmental review documents related to the City’s recently completed Wet Weather Equalization Basin.
WBC conducted an additional assessment on March 31 and April 4, 2022, which focused on reevaluating the wetland boundary in the southern portion of the study area in support of a design modification regarding an emergency drain riser. The entire site was assessed on April 5, 2023, to determine whether the wetland boundary had changed in the intervening period, which included the exceptionally wet winter of 2022-2023. The field data collection consisted of observations of wetland and upland vegetation, soil characteristics, and evidence of hydrology in relation to topography. The delineation used the Routine Determination Method as described in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual, in conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coasts Region (Version 2.0).
Aquatic resources were classified using commonly accepted habitat types.
In the northern portion of the project site, vegetation, soil and hydrology were documented at nine locations on three transects across the wetland-upland boundary. Sample points were mapped in the field using a Trimble Geo XT 6000, with differential correction. A wetland boundary (subject to verification by the USACE) was mapped on an aerial photograph. Three positive wetland parameters must normally be present for an area to be considered a wetland: dominance of wetland vegetation, presence of hydric soils, and presence of wetland hydrology.
Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts related to biological resources is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above.
4.1-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly (e.g., threaten to eliminate a plant community) or through habitat modifications, on any plant species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.
As discussed above, suitable habitat is not present on-site for 28 30 of the 29 31 special-status plant species identified in the five-mile radius of the study area due to the absence of chaparral, coastal bluffs, woodland, etc. In addition, none of the species were identified during the reconnaissance-level field survey of the study area.
Therefore, low potential exists for the majority of special-status plants to occur on-site.
While sandy soils are present, which would provide potential habitat for San Francisco Bay spineflower, the species was not present during the 2020 field survey. However, IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
given enough time, plants may become established in areas where suitable habitat exists. Therefore, San Francisco Bay spineflower could become established on-site in the interim between surveys/analysis and construction, which could result in potential impacts during construction of the proposed project.
Based on the above and given the substantial time between the 2020 field survey and the commencement of construction activities, without additional field surveys, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a plant species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Thus, a 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.
4.1-1(a) Prior to the commencement of construction associated with the proposed project, focused plant preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the documented bloom periods of San Francisco Bay spineflower. Two site visits, including one early-season (April) and one late-season (July) shall be sufficient to cover the blooming periods. If San Francisco Bay spineflower are not observed during the focused plant surveys, impact to special-status plant species would not occur, and mitigation would not be required.
The results of the surveys shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department.
4.1-1(b) If San Francisco Bay spineflower are identified on-site during the focused plant surveys, the project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring construction activities avoid special-status plants through preparation and submittal to the City’s Planning Department of an Avoidance Plan Report detailing protection and avoidance criteria, measures, and the extent to which special-status plants were successfully avoided. The Avoidance Plan Report shall be subject to approval by the City’s Planning Department and CDFW.
If avoidance is infeasible, the qualified biologist shall ensure seed collection for affected special-status plants is completed and plants are re-established at a minimum of a one-to-one ratio (number of newly established plants relative to the number of plants impacted) in a preserved, suitable habitat approved by the City and CDFW. The project applicant shall document and submit proof of compliance to the City’s Planning Department and CDFW.
Re-established special-status plant populations shall be monitored annually by the project applicant in accordance with an approved Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared in consultation with the City’s Planning Department, with annual monitoring taking place for a minimum of five years. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
include criteria, subject to approval by all applicable agencies, including the City’s Planning Department, USFWS, and CDFW, detailing the survival ratio required of re-established populations and performance standards for further replanting for any re-established special-status plant species that do not survive. Reports describing performance results shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department for years one, three, and five of the monitoring period.
4.1-2 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through
habitat modifications, on migratory birds and raptors
protected under the MBTA. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.
The Biological Constraints Analysis determined the proposed project to have the potential to impact special-status and non-special-status native nesting birds protected under the CFGC and MBTA, including Allen’s hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, song sparrow, spotted towhee, wrentit, and saltmarsh common yellowthroat.
As previously discussed, native nesting birds, including raptors, are protected by CFGC Section 3503. Raptors, passerines, non-passerine land birds, and waterfowl are further protected under the MBTA. 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.
The trees within the northern portion of the project site and proposed off-site areas provide suitable nesting habitat to accommodate nesting songbirds and other raptors protected under the MBTA and CGFC. Several trees are located within the study area and nests could potentially be established prior to project construction. Should construction activities occur during the nesting season, the potential exists that such activities could result in impacts to protected nesting songbirds and raptors if construction activities were to cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts, or direct mortality if active nests occur within the trees in the study area proposed for removal. Furthermore, construction activities adjacent to birds nesting in avoided areas could result in nest abandonment.
With respect to saltmarsh common yellowthroat, which is protected under the MBTA and considered a CDFW Species of Special Concern, the Biological Constraints Analysis determined that the study area does not support potential nesting habitat for the species. Willow scrub within the study area could provide migration habitat, and IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
the species was observed foraging on-site during 2017 through 2018. Therefore, construction of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on saltmarsh common yellowthroat individuals.
Based on the above, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on nesting songbirds and raptor species protected under the MBTA and CFGC. Thus, a significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
The following mitigation measure includes buffer distances recommended by the project biologist.15 Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.1-2 To ensure compliance with protections for migratory birds under the MBTA and the CFGC, 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 prior to the commencement of construction activities.
1. If construction activities are scheduled to occur outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 15 through January 3115), pre-construction surveys or other mitigation measures are not necessary.
2. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 January 15 through August 31 September 15), 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 experienced with nesting behavior of birds of the region no more than two weeks seven days prior to the initiation of work. A second focused survey shall be conducted within 48 hours prior to construction activities that would occur during the nesting/breeding season. If ground disturbance activities are delayed following a survey, then an additional preconstruction survey shall be conducted such that no more than two weeks will have elapsed between the last survey and the
commencement of ground disturbance activities. If a lapse of project-related activities of seven days or longer occurs, another focused survey shall be conducted before project activities can be reinitiated. If nesting or breeding activity is not observed, work may proceed without restrictions. To the extent allowed by access, all active nests identified within 250 feet of construction activities, including equipment staging, for raptors and 100 feet for other protected bird species shall be mapped.
15 Rodgers, Chris, Principal Ecologist, Wood Biological Consulting. Personal communication [email] with Brianne Harkousha, Deputy Director, City of Pacifica Community Development Department. June 25, 2025.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
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 construction is determined unlikely to disrupt breeding behavior, construction may proceed. If construction is determined to potentially disrupt breeding, the construction-free buffer zone shall be expanded; avoidance is the only mitigation available. The ultimate size of the construction-free 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 construction activities are determined likely to disrupt raptor breeding, construction activities within the construction-free buffer zone may not proceed and project personnel or
equipment shall not be allowed to enter the protective buffer until the project biologist determines that the nest is unoccupied. and the young have fully fledged.
4. If the project biologist, in consultation with the City, determines that maintenance of a construction-free buffer zone is not practicable, active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist to document breeding and rearing behavior of the adult birds. The qualified biologist shall observe any identified active nests prior to the start of any construction-related activities to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and any nestlings, and the nest site(s) shall be monitored by the biologist periodically to see if the birds are stressed by the construction activities and if the protective buffer needs to be increased. The perimeter of the nest setback zone shall be fenced or
adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities restricted from the area. A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that no active nests are present, or that the young have fledged, shall be submitted prior to initiation of grading in the nestsetback zone. The qualified biologist shall serve as a biological monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. All buffers shall be shown on all sets of construction drawings. If construction activities are determined to potentially cause nest abandonment, work shall cease until the project biologist determines that the nest is unoccupied. For raptors, the CDFW and/or the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management shall be contacted for guidance.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
4.1-3 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through
habitat modifications, on any wildlife species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.
As discussed above, the majority of special-status species identified with the potential to occur within the vicinity of the study areas are considered unlikely, or have no potential, to occur 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. The only potentially aquatic feature in the study area is a small area within the emergent marsh vegetation that, in the past, ponded seasonally, but not consistently between and within years. In particular, permanent water for the minimum duration of 11 to 20 weeks required for larval development does not occur. Groundwater level on and around the study area appear to have been drawn down since construction of the City’s Wet Weather Equalization Basin. However, while suitable breeding habitat for California red-legged frog does not occur within the study area on a regular basis, the potential for California red-legged frog to occur in the study area exists under rare conditions.
As such, potential impacts to California red-legged frog are addressed herein.
The nearest population of California red-legged frog is located 0.3-mile south of the study area, in San Pedro Creek. However, the study area is surrounded by high ridges and other topographic barriers precluding line-of-sight migration, including residential development and major roads, such as SR 1. Therefore, the primary constituent elements in the Recovery Plan are not present, and California red-legged frog would not be anticipated to occur on-site.
In addition, big free-tailed bat, fringed myotis, hoary bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat have been identified within five miles of the study area. While the Biological Constraints Analysis did not identify actively roosting bats in the project area, according to the CDFW, project activities could directly or indirectly impact roosting bats during vegetation removal, ground disturbance, or other noise generating activities. As such, should bats be roosting within or in the vicinity of the study area during construction activities associated with the proposed project, an adverse effect to such species could occur.
Nonetheless, bBecause California red-legged frog and special-status bat species is are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site and potentially suitable habitat is present, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a wildlife species (California red-legged frog) identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS, and a significant impact could occur.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.1-3(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-4(b) and 4.1-4(c).
4.1-3(b) Pre-construction surveys for special-status and non-listed bat species shall be performed by a qualified biologist prior to removal of the onsite trees and commencement of construction activities. If any active maternity or hibernation roosts are identified within 100 feet of areas proposed for development, a CDFW-approved qualified biologist shall establish site-specific protective buffers around roosts, sized with consideration for the species that are present and the time of year bats are roosting, as well as levels of construction noise and light emission from project activities.
4.1-4 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.
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 CWA, and State regulations, such as the Porter-Cologne Act and the CDFW Streambed Alteration Act. Wetlands are considered sensitive environmental resources protected at federal, State, and local levels. Wetlands provide unique habitat functions and values for wildlife, and provide habitat for plant species adapted to wetland hydrology. Throughout the State, the quality and quantity of wetlands has dramatically declined owing to the construction of dams, dikes, and levees, as well as because of water diversions, the filling of wetlands for development, and the overall degradation of water quality by inputs of runoff from agricultural, urban, and infrastructure development and other sources.
As part of the Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources and Effects Analysis, the project site was surveyed to determine the presence of any wetlands, non-wetland waters, or riparian vegetation potentially subject to jurisdiction under the CDFW or the USACE. 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. As detailed in Table 4.1- 1, a total of approximately 0.550-acre of arroyo willow scrub exists within the study area. Although the area of arroyo willow scrub that would be removed as part of the proposed project is not associated with a stream or lakebed setting, the CDFW may determine that the arroyo willow scrub area meets its interpretation of riparian vegetation, which would require notification, review, and authorization under the IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
CDFW Streambed Alteration Act. If such is the case, the project applicant would enter into a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.
The Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources and Effects Analysis determined that approximately 0.240-acre of emergent marsh and approximately
0.060-acre of seasonal wetlands are present within the study area. Recent changes to the definition of WOTUS have resulted in changes in the interpretation of the federal jurisdictional status of the on-site wetland. In 2020, at the time of the first wetland delineation update, the USEPA and the USACE Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) was in effect. The NWPR included adjacent wetlands, which could be separated from waters of the U.S. by an artificial structure so long as the structure allows for a direct hydrologic connection between the adjacent wetlands and waters of the U.S. The 2020 wetland delineation acknowledged that the wetland on the project parcels could be considered jurisdictional by virtue of its potential connection to the ocean by way of the drainage easement, stormwater sewer, and the Anza Pump Station.
In January 2023, the NWPR was repealed and replaced with a new revised rule.
Discussed above in the Regulatory Context section, in response to the Sackett decision, USACE and the USEPA issued a final rule that revises the definition of WOTUS within USACE and USEPA regulations. According to the updated rule, adjacent wetlands must be contiguous with navigable waters with a surface water connection. The on-site wetland does not exhibit a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters (the Pacific Ocean), because the wetland is interrupted by a drainage swale that did not exhibit flow during the wet winter of 2022-2023; a subsurface storm drain system that would capture any flow that occurs; and a system of flood control pumps that would be required to discharge flows to the ocean.
In the southwestern corner of the study area, surface water (i.e., in excess of what percolates on-site or is pumped from neighboring properties) could enter the shallow drainage swale that flows west-northwest toward SR 1, parallel with the backyard fences of existing residences on Anza Drive. The swale follows the route of a buried 24-inch storm drain culvert. At least two drain inlets to the culvert are located at ground surface level within the undeveloped parcel between the Pacifica Skatepark and SR
1. The culvert crosses SR 1 under the north entrance to the parking lot for Pacifica State Beach, and connects to the Anza Pump Station, which discharges directly to the Pacific Ocean. However, following the exceptionally wet winter of 2022-2023, evidence of surface water flow exiting the project site parcels by way of the drainage easement except by way of the underground storm sewer does not exist. Although higher water levels did occur following the large rain events, necessitating pumping from neighboring properties, the water level did not appear to overtop the low berm in the southwest corner of the project site.
The on-site wetland is never inundated by water from the Pacific Ocean by way of the culvert and swale, any tributaries do not enter the project site. Therefore, while the wetlands within the study area exhibit field indicators consistent with jurisdictional wetlands, the wetlands do not meet the current regulatory definition of federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA. Because the proposed project does not propose any actions resulting in a discharge of fill into the wetlands, IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
development of the proposed project does not require a Section 404 permit under the USACE regulatory program.
Waters of the State include WOTUS, but may also include areas that do not meet the criteria for federal jurisdictional status. The State wetland definition is:
“An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.”
The State wetland definition relies on the federal delineation method to identify State wetlands. As shown above in Figure 4.1-2, the areas mapped as non-jurisdictional arroyo willow scrub do not satisfy criteria (1) or (2). The proposed project would remove or prune an estimated 784 square feet (sf) of arroyo willow scrub to meet parking and walkway requirements at the southern edge of the proposed Building B.
The portion of arroyo willow scrub does not meet all three wetland criteria (i.e., soil and hydrology indicators are lacking), and, therefore, is not included in the wetland total. The proposed project also would result in planting of 1,170 sf of willow scrub, which would avoid fill discharge into waters of the State. In addition, the 18-inch emergency overflow riser that would be installed in the western corner of the project site and would connect to the existing 12-inch storm drain that extends along the site’s southwestern boundary is located outside of the delineated wetland area.
However, tThe on-site central area of arroyo willow scrub, freshwater emergent marsh and transitional seasonal wetland have been shown to meet the definition of waters of the State. Therefore However, as described above, the proposed project could potentially would not disturb and, possibly, or fill, up to the 0.870.76-acre of jurisdictional wetlands. and/or The proposed project would include remove removal of potential riparian vegetation. As such, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and a significant impact could occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.1-4(a) Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall notify CDFW, pursuant to CFGC Section 1600. The notification shall include a description of all of the activities associated with the proposed project, not just those associated with the drainages and/or riparian vegetation. Impacts shall be outlined in the notification and are expected to be in substantial conformance with the impacts to biological resources outlined in the Updated Definition of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources and Effects Analysis prepared for the 570 Crespi Drive Project by Wood Biological Consulting. Impacts for each activity shall be broken down by temporary and permanent - = =
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
impacts. A description of the proposed mitigation for biological resource impacts shall be outlined per activity and then by temporary and permanent impact. Information regarding project-specific drainage and hydrology changes resulting from project implementation shall be provided, along with a description of stormwater treatment methods.
Minimization and avoidance measures shall be proposed, as appropriate, and may include preconstruction species surveys and reporting, protective fencing around avoided biological resources, worker environmental awareness training, seeding disturbed areas adjacent to open space areas with native seed, and installation of project-specific stormwater BMPs. Mitigation for impacts to 0.550-acre of arroyo willow scrub riparian vegetation may include restoration or enhancement of resources on- or off-site, or any other method acceptable to CDFW. Mitigation shall not result in a net loss of a Sensitive Natural Community.
If CDFW determines through the course of the CFGC Section 1600 notification process that the project does not require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) to address potential impacts to arroyo willow scrub, further mitigation beyond the proposed mitigation included in the notice to CDFW regarding the aforementioned vegetation communities shall not be required. Written verification of the applicant’s compliance with the Section 1600 LSAA process shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica Planning Division prior to the start of any construction activities.
4.1-4(b) 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 will also 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 would not flow underneath, and wildlife would not enter the work area from the wetland. The barrier shall be maintained throughout the duration of the construction period. Evidence of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City of Pacifica Planning Division prior to the start of any construction activities.
4.1-4(c) 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, including California red-legged frog, 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 IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
animal alone to move away on its own or the relocation of the animal to an area outside of the construction area. The qualified biologist, in consultation with the CDFW and USFWS, shall make the ultimate determination of the action to be taken. Evidence of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department prior to commencement of construction activities.
4.1-4(d) If required and prior to initiation of grading, excavation, or other construction activities, the project applicant shall submit to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB an application for CWA 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 and obtain a permit or waiver. The project applicant shall be responsible for conducting all project activities in accordance with the permit provisions outlined in any 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.
4.1-5 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.
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.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b), a temporary sediment and debris barrier would be installed on the southern limit of the construction area that slopes toward the arroyo willow and emergent wetland habitat. The fence would act as a wildlife exclusion fence during construction. Therefore, water and sediment would not flow under the fence, and wildlife, including California red-legged frogs, would not enter the construction area from the wetland.
Furthermore, as the project site is bounded by the Pacifica Community Center and Pacifica Skatepark to the west, Ocean View Senior Apartments and commercial businesses to the north, across Crespi Drive, commercial businesses to the east, and single-family residences to the south, the potential for use of the site as a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site is limited. Additionally, sufficient land in the greater vicinity, specifically in the eastern portions of the City limits and areas to the south of the City, offer land much more conducive to wildlife movement and native wildlife nursery sites, as such areas are devoid of development. Given the amount of IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
suitable land in the greater vicinity of the project site that could accommodate wildlife movement, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.
In addition, with respect to California red-legged frog, as discussed above, existing populations are separated from the project site by high ridges and other topographic barriers precluding line-of-sight migration, residential development and major roads, including SR 1. The on-site wetland does not exhibit a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters, because the wetland is interrupted by a drainage swale that did not exhibit flow during the wet winter of 2022-2023. Therefore, because a hydraulic connection to the project site does not exist, the species would not be anticipated to migrate to the project site. Nonetheless, as discussed above, Mitigation Measure 4.1-4(b) would require a temporary sediment and debris barrier on the southern limit of the construction area that slopes toward the arroyo willow and emergent wetland habitat, which would serve as a wildlife exclusion fence during construction.
Based on the above information, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.
4.1-6 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Based on the analysis below and with
implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than
significant.
Several trees and shrubs are located on-site. Although the proposed project would include the removal of several on-site trees, the project would preserve trees along the project site frontage and within the off-site improvement area. As discussed above, one on-site Monterey pine is considered a heritage tree, and two on-site Monterey cypress trees are considered protected trees pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Section 4-12.02.
Any removal of a protected tree requires a Tree Removal Permit, and any relocation or transportation of a protected tree, application of fertilizers or chemicals, grading, clearing, excavating, adding fill soil, trenching, boring, compacting, or paving within 50 feet of a protected tree or City tree requires a Tree Encroachment Permit pursuant to Pacifica Municipal Code Sections 4-12.04 and 4-12.06, respectively. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan must be submitted in conjunction with any development proposal which requires a discretionary permit or other land use approval, or a proposal to engage in regulated work within 50 feet of a protected tree. The plan must IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
be prepared by a qualified arborist, horticulturist, landscape architect or other qualified person.
Based on the above, without preparation of a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan or obtainment of a Tree Removal Permit or Tree Encroachment Permit, the removal of or encroachment upon on-site heritage and protected trees could conflict with a local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Thus, a significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.
4.1-6 Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit for any protected trees to be removed and a Tree Encroachment Permit for any construction activities within 50 feet of a protected tree from the City of Pacifica Director of Public Works.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall complete planting of any replacement trees required as part of the Director of Public Works heritage tree removal authorization or other authorizations. In addition, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan prior to the protected tree removal or encroachment authorizations or other authorizations in accordance with the City Municipal Code, Sections 4-12.02 through 4-
12.11, and shall implement any tree protection measures identified to protect trees which will not be removed during construction prior to commencement of any construction activity.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
The geographic scope for the cumulative biological resources analysis generally includes buildout of the proposed project in conjunction with the development of the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040 planning area. For more details regarding the cumulative setting, refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.
4.1-7 Cumulative impact on biological resources. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.
The General Plan Update EIR concluded that, with implementation of the City of Pacifica General Plan 2040 policies, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. While the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment, IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Partially Recirculated Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April August 2025
Chapter 4.1 – Biological Resources
disturbance of the project site and associated impacts to biological resources were anticipated in the General Plan Update EIR.
As discussed above, the study area contains a variety of vegetation communities, including arroyo willow scrub, emergent marsh, seasonal wetland, non-native annual grassland, and disturbed and ornamental. In addition, the study area includes a total of 0.87-acre of jurisdictional wetlands. As discussed throughout this chapter, the project site provides limited habitat for special-status species, including San Francisco Bay spineflower and saltmarsh common yellowthroat. Mitigation measures have been set forth in this chapter to ensure that the proposed project complies with all applicable standards and regulations and minimizes potential adverse effects to special-status species.
It should be noted that while the proposed project would result in the loss of a portion of the existing on-site habitat, the southern portion of the project site would remain undeveloped in order to avoid environmentally sensitive wetland areas. Overall, with incorporation of the mitigation measures set forth herein, potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to biological resources protected by CEQA.
As further discussed in Chapter 5 of this EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(5), states, “[…] the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” Therefore, even where cumulative impacts are identified as significant, any level of incremental contribution is not necessarily deemed cumulatively considerable. In addition, the courts have explicitly rejected the notion that a finding of significance is required simply because a proposed project would result in a net loss of habitat. “[M]itigation need not account for every square foot of impacted habitat to be adequate. What matters is that the unmitigated impact is no longer significant,” (Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County [2013] 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 528, quoting Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach [2012] 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233).
The above discussion provides substantial evidence that, while the combined effects on biological resources resulting from approved/planned development throughout the area could be considered significant, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the significant cumulative effect would be reduced with implementation of the mitigation measures required in this EIR.
Based on the above, the proposed project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.
IL
1.b
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
APPENDIX C
1.b
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Technical Memorandum
DATE: August 21, 2023
TO: Brendan Murphy, Eamon Murphy
BayWorks Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 301
San Mateo, CA 94401
FROM: Chris Rogers
SUBJECT: Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica CA
A 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis1 report was prepared in 2014 for the single parcel at 570 Crespi Avenue. The current development proposal for this parcel (referred to herein as the Murphy parcel) now also includes the adjacent parcel at 540 Crespi Avenue (APN 540 and 570 Crespi Drive, in Pacifica, CA (APN 022-162-420 and 022-162-310) which is owned by the City of Pacifica.
The parcels are owned by Brendan and Eamon Murphy and by the City of Pacifica, respectively, and are referred to here as the Murphy parcel and the City parcel (see Figures 1 and 2). The two parcels are under consideration for being merged and developed by the Murphys.
A peer review of the original biology report2
recommended several information items to enable
the City to make planning decisions with regard to biological resources. In response, an updated biological constraints analysis technical memorandum3
was provided to the City in August 2020.
Because the 2014 report was technically sound (according to the peer review), the 2020 memorandum focused on the items that required update or revision according to the peer review recommendations, which were:
x Include both parcels (i.e., the City parcel and the Murphy parcel) that are the subject of the current development proposal.
x Include California Rare Plant Rank 3 plants, which should be analyzed during environmental review under CEQA. x Expand the analysis to include plants, wildlife and natural communities documented in the California Natural Diversity Data Base within five miles of the study area, and preparing an update to Table 1 of the Biological Constraints Report. x Provide analysis of the potential for California red-legged frog to occupy the site, and avoidance and minimization measures, if warranted.
x Provide discussion on protections for migratory birds subject to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, with recommended avoidance and minimization measures.
1 Monk & Associates. 2014. Biological Constraints Analysis, 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (APNS: 022-162-310) (~1.7 Acres). Prepared for SC Properties, San Mateo CA. October
8. 2
Madrone Ecological Consulting. 2020. Peer review for the proposed 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California. Letter to Rod Stinson. Raney Planning and Management, Inc. April 4. 3 Wood Biological Consulting. 2020. Biological Constraints Analysis – Updated; 540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica CA. August 17.
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
PO Box 1569
El Granada, CA 94018
(415) 254-4835
[email protected]
www.wood-biological.com
1.b
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
6 This memorandum updates the 2020 report; addresses changes and revisions to the proposed project; expands the study area to include an additional area located adjacent to the City parcel that is included as part of the project description; and consolidates responses to specific issues raised by the City and by the public during preparation and public review of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
In addition to this biological resources constraints analysis, a separate report updates the wetland delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and other waters subject to state and federal jurisdiction4 .
The updated report includes evaluation of a small additional area, and re-evaluates the extent of jurisdictional features.
Because the study area is not located within the Coastal Zone, no Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) subject to regulation under the City’s Local Coastal Plan were documented.
METHODS
Prior to conducting field data collection, Wood Biological Consulting (WBC) reviewed relevant background information, including:
x California Natural Diversity Database records of special-status plant, animal species and natural communities documented as occurring within five miles of the study area5 x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (IPac) database for federally listed species and migratory birds6
x California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants7 x a sequence of aerial photo imagery on Google Earth
x Montara Mountain U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, x a topographic survey map of the study area
x CEQA documentation of the City’s recently completed Wet Weather Equalization Basin8 ,
which is adjacent to and due west of the City parcel.
4 Wood Biological Consulting. 2020. Aquatic Resources Delineation, 540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica CA.
Technical Report prepared for BayWorks Construction, Inc. 5 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2023. Version 5.3.0. Query of the Montara Mountain and San Francisco South USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, California. Information dated August 1. 6 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. IPaC Trust Resource Report for 540 and 570 Crespi Drive. Information for Planning and Conservation. Report generated July 18 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
7 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v9.5). Query for the Montara Mountain and San Francisco South USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Accessed June 8 at www.rareplants.cnps.org/ 8 Terraphase Engineering, Inc. 2016. Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project, Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Prepared for City of Pacifica. https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=11510
1.b
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
7 In addition, WBC conferred with Mr. Patrick Kobernus of Coast Ridge Ecology, who acted as the City’s biological compliance monitor during construction of the EQ basin in 2017-2018, during which he made direct observations of biological resources in the study area.
A reconnaissance-level survey for biological resources on both parcels was conducted by WBC senior ecologist Chris Rogers on July 19, 2020. This consisted of walking as much of the parcels as were physically accessible (dense and impenetrable willow scrub is limiting over a portion of the study area), and making observations of habitats plant and wildlife species on and adjacent to the study area. Additional site visits to observe and document biological and wetland resources occurred on July 19, 2020; September 16, 2020; April 4. 2022; June 27, 2022; December 31, 2022; and April 5, 2023.
Botanical taxonomy and nomenclature conform to The Jepson Manual9 , except for recent revisions posted on the Jepson Online Interchange. Vegetation communities described herein conform to A Manual of California Vegetation10.
Results of Database queries are included as attachments.
SETTING
The study area is located within the Santa Cruz Mountains subsection of the Central California Coast Section as described in the Ecological Subregions of California11 (USDA 1997). Vegetation in the study area is not representative of historic conditions, which likely consisted of coastal scrub, coastal dunes and coastal prairie. Currently, the northern portion of the study area supports several large Monterey cypress trees with an understory (groundcover) of predominantly non-native herbaceous vegetation. The southern portion of the study area is slightly lower in elevation gradually becomes dominated by perennial wetland vegetation, such as willows, cattails and sedges.
The study area is situated within a residential and commercial neighborhood of Linda Mar, within the City of Pacifica. The study area ranges from approximately 15 ft elevation (relative to a City benchmark in Crespi Drive) at the northeastern end of the Murphy parcel, to about 9 ft at the southwestern end. The climate is cool and temperate, characteristic of the San Francisco Peninsula coastal region. The average annual high temperature in Pacifica is 64°F; the annual average low temperature is 49°F). About 29.5 inches of precipitation falls annually, with the majority of rainfall between October and April12.
9 Baldwin, B.G, D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 1568 pp. Jepson eFlora available online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html 10 Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (2nd edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 1300 pp. Available online at http://vegetation.cnps.org/ 11 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Ecological Subregions of California: sections and subsections descriptions. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. https://web.archive.org/web/20080304224853/http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/ecoregions/ 12 https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/pacifica/california/united-states/usca0822
1.b
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
8 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE HABITATS
Vegetation within the study area consists of arroyo willow scrub, and emergent marsh, non-native annual grassland, and disturbed and ornamental habitats (Figure 3). The following are descriptions of the vegetation types occurring within the wetland delineation study area.
Arroyo Willow Scrub
Willow scrub, dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), covers the majority of the southern portion of the Murphy and City parcels (Figure 3). The willows form a dense and impenetrable thicket with few associated plant species. The willow scrub is almost entirely within the delineated wetland boundary; the exception is at the northern extent, where soils and hydrology near the edge of the willows failed to meet federal jurisdictional criteria.
Emergent Marsh
Emergent marsh occupies a shallow topographic depression in the middle part of the study area (Figure 3), corresponding with the small area that used to have 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. All of the emergent marsh is within the delineated wetland boundary.
Non-native Annual Grassland
Non-native grassland vegetation is present on the majority of the northern part of the study area, including the former residence site (Figure 3). 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 broadleaf herbaceous species. A small portion of the non-native annual grassland is situated within the delineated wetland boundary, where it may be expanding down the topographic gradient in response to drier soil conditions following groundwater pumping during construction of the City’s Wet Weather Equalization Basin. Although rainfall in 2022-2023 was substantially above normal, the location of vegetation boundaries appeared relatively unchanged since 2020.
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 type of habitat 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 study area, an informal parking area adjacent to Crespi Drive that is used by beach visitors, and a gravel staging area used during construction of the Wet Weather Equalization Basin are disturbed habitat (Figure 3).
Ornamental vegetation consists of maintained and unmaintained landscaping using native and non-native plants. Within the study area, a portion of the landscaped areas between the Community Center and Crespi Drive is considered, ornamental; large Monterey cypress trees are remnants of landscaping associated with the former residence on the Murphy parcel. None of this area is within the delineated wetland boundary.
1.b
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
9 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
The laws comprising California’s legal framework and authority for plant species conservation include the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Special-status plants include those listed as endangered, threatened, or rare or as candidates for listing by the USFWS and CDFW13, as well as those with California Rare Plant Rank of 1 through 314. Additional definitions are given in Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Special-status animal species include those listed as endangered, threatened, or rare or as candidates for listing by the USFWS and/or CDFW15. Other species having special status include the “special animals” listed in the CNDDB16 and avian species protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act17 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)18. The California Fish and Game Code provides protection for “fully protected birds19”, “fully protected mammals20”, “fully protected reptiles and amphibians21,” and “fully protected fish22.” Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations prohibits the take of amphibians23, reptiles24, and furbearers25 that are listed under CESA, MBTA, or are “fully protected.” Additional definitions are given in Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Special-status natural communities are known to have limited distribution in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species, or receive regulatory protection (i.e., waters of the United States, covered under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act [CWA] and/or waters of the State covered under Section 1600, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act [Water Code Sections 13000–14920]). The California Natural Diversity 13 CDFW. 2020a. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly publication. January 2. 13 pp. Available online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline 14 CDFW. 2023b. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. Quarterly publication. July. 175 pp. Available online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline 15 CDFW. 2023c. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. July. 37 pp. Available online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline 16 CDFW. 2023d. Special Animals List. Natural Diversity Database. July. 137pp. Available online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline 17 16 USC 668, et seq. 18 16 USC 703-711, as amended
19 §3511
20 §4700
21 §5050
22 §5515
23 Chapter 5 §41
24 Chapter 5 §42
25 Chapter 5 §460
1.b
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
10 Data Base (CNDDB) has ranked a number of natural communities in terms of their significance and rarity26.
Figures 4, 5 and 6 (see attachments) show the locations of documented occurrences of special status species and sensitive natural communities in the vicinity of the study area. Tables 1 and 2 (plants and wildlife, respectively; see attachments) provide an update of the summary table included in the 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis report. Two species, salt marsh common yellowthroat and California red-legged frog, are evaluated in detail, below.
California red-legged frog
The 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis provided a detailed summary of California red-legged frog (CRLF), including its regulatory status (i.e., federal protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and state protection as a species of special concern), its breeding and dispersal habitat requirements, and environmental conditions that facilitate their movement. The analysis also cited the USFWS Recovery Plan for California Red-Legged Frog 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”27.
The 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis did not, however provide an analysis of the potential for California red-legged frog to occupy the study area. Based on observations of the emergent wetlands in the study area in July 2020, and conversations with the biologist that monitored the construction of the City’s Wet-Weather Equalization Basin, the study area does not provide suitable breeding or dispersal habitat for this species28. The only aquatic feature is a small area within the emergent marsh vegetation that, in the past, ponded seasonally, but not consistently over the years. In particular, permanent water for the minimum duration of 11-20 weeks required for larval development does not occur reliably every year. The groundwater level in and around the study area appear to have been drawn down since construction of the Equalization Basin29, while unusually large precipitation events or seasonal cumulative totals can cause ponding to persist for several months, as occurred following the greater than normal precipitation total for the winter of 2022-2023.
The nearest population of CRLF is 0.3 miles south of the study area, in San Pedro Creek, but is separated from the study area by dense residential and commercial development, heavily traveled roads (including Highway 1), and frequently-visited Pacifica State Beach. The opportunities for CRLF to successfully disperse to the study area from San Pedro Creek are limited, in part by distance from the San Pedro Creek habitat area, but also by barriers to movement, as described below. Similarly, populations of CRLF at Calera Creek (1 mile north of the study area; Occ. #504), La26 CDFW. 2023e. California Sensitive Natural Communities. Biogeographic Data Branch, Natural Diversity Database. June 1. 63 pp. Available online at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline 27 USFWS. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Region 1, Portland, Oregon. Viii+173 pp. May 28. 28 Patrick Kobernus, pers. comm. with C. Rogers. July 20, 2020. 29 Wood Biological Consulting. Ibid.
1.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
11 guna Salada (1.9 miles north; Occ. #455), and in Vallemar (1.6 miles northeast; Occ. #918) are separated from the study area by high ridges and other topographic barriers precluding line-of-sight migration, residential development and major roads, including Highway 1.
The study area is not considered suitable for CRLF breeding and dispersal because it does not provide breeding habitat or dispersal habitat that connects with the San Pedro Creek population. The study area does not satisfy the primary constituent elements outlined in the Recovery Plan for California Red-Legged Frog (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996). The Recovery Plan states: “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”. In contrast, the study area exists in an area that has been fragmented by residential, commercial, recreational and transportation development for decades. The Recovery Plan also says that CRLF populations are “most likely to persist where multiple breeding areas are embedded within a matrix of habitats used for dispersal.” Barrier-free dispersal habitat consists of the following:
x Must have two or more suitable breeding locations: only San Pedro Creek meets this condition; the study area contains emergent marsh vegetation that, in past years, ponded seasonally, but not consistently between and within years. Permanent ponded water for the minimum duration of 11-20 weeks required for larval development was not observed during two years of construction of the City’s wet weather equalization basin. x Permanent water source: only San Pedro Creek meets this condition. x Uplands surrounding water bodies up to 300 feet from water’s edge: both San Pedro Creek and the study area meet this condition.
x Within 1.25 miles of suitable breeding locations: both San Pedro Creek and the study area meet this condition.
x Connected by barrier-free dispersal habitat that is at least 300 ft in width: only the vacant parcel between Highway 1 and the skate park is greater than 300 ft (up to 325 ft); all other dispersal routes between San Pedro Creek and the study area (excluding paved segments) are 15-40 ft wide.
As described in the scientific literature, CRLF may move between breeding habitat and other unobstructed locations. The physical conditions studied in this literature, however, were very different from the urbanized and heavily traveled environment near Pacifica State Beach and the study area. The following points should be considered regarding the reasons that the study area is unlikely to support CRLF, and the reasons that CRLF would not be likely to move from San Pedro Creek to the study area.
The San Pedro Creek population is approximately 1500 feet away from the study area (measured in a straight line or radius without taking existing housing into account; the actual potential route would be over 2,000 feet). The updated biological report incorporated into the Draft IS/MND concluded that the separation of the study area from San Pedro Creek by dense residential and commercial development, heavily traveled Highway 1, and frequently-visited Pacifica State Beach precluded opportunities for CRLF to successfully reach the study area from San Pedro Creek.
The following physical conditions show why there are no suitable movement corridors between known CRLF breeding habitat and the study area:
1.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
12 1. The swale/ditch on the west side of Highway 1 is a discontinuous corridor, interrupted by paved driveways and the highway, and is unsuitable for nocturnal dispersal and foraging without significant risk of injury or death from automobile traffic. Following this route, the shortest distance between San Pedro Creek and the study area is over 2,000 feet, of which a minimum of 400 feet is paved (see Figure 7 and site photographs in attachments). This route is sub-optimal for CRLF movement. The attached map traces the route from San Pedro Creek and the marsh near its mouth. The yellow lines are ditches, swales or grassy areas that would provide a preferential route for frogs with vegetative cover and foraging opportunities. The red lines are sections that cross roads or trails with no cover, i.e., they are fully exposed to traffic or predators, but are the shortest-line connection between segments with cover. There are no functioning culverts at these road crossings (see #6, below).
2. To follow this route starting at the marsh next to the mouth of the San Pedro Creek, CRLF would have to cross the pavement next to the Linda Mar Pump Station to reach a shallow mowed swale at the intersection of Highway 1 and San Pedro Avenue located over 200 feet away. Alternatively, frogs would travel the route from the creek between the bridges for Highway 1 and San Pedro Avenue, traversing an additional 425 feet of mowed swale between the two roads with poor cover.
3. Some sections of the ditch have dense cover of willows with leaf litter or patches of ivy, while other areas are covered with drifting sand and sparse vegetation and are relatively exposed and unsuitable for CRLF.
4. The roadside ditch does not drain to the creek. Previously, it was used as part of a Clean Beach Initiative Grant that the City received in 2001 from the State Water Resources Control Board to address stormwater quality discharged to the beach. Stormwater was collected at two pump stations (the Linda Mar Pump Station at San Pedro Avenue, and the Anza Pump Station about halfway toward Crespi Drive) and was conveyed through the ditches from north to south to provide filtering and infiltration. It was then stored and further infiltrated in a treatment wetland that surrounded the Linda Mar Pump Station, and then pumped directly to the ocean through the discharge point located on the beach. This stormwater did not and does not currently flow directly to the creek, so any potential movement corridor is separated from the creek. Thus, there is no continuous movement corridor for CRLF that provides cover and soil moisture. Stormwater is no longer managed that way, i.e., it is not circulated from Linda Mar Pump Station to Anza Pump Station and filtered or infiltrated using the ditch and treatment wetland.
5. Stormwater that collects from road runoff in the wide mowed swale between Hwy 1 and San Pedro Road also does not flow directly to the creek. Instead, it is collected at a storm drain inlet at the northeast end of the swale, crosses under San Pedro Road near the traffic light, and enters a storm drain that goes to the Linda Mar Pump Station. Thus, there is no continuous hydrological connection in the ditch and swale adjacent to the highway. Habitat for CRLF is of low quality and includes sections with little or no cover and low prey availability, providing low incentive for movement.
6. As of May 2023, there were no functioning culverts connecting the ditch segments under the paved segments. Dispersing frogs would be forced to traverse the parking lot driveways in these locations. It is likely that there were culverts as part of the former stormwater treatment system to convey flows from the Anza Pump Station back
1.b
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
13 to the Linda Mar Pump Station. If so, they have since filled with sand. Loose blown sand enters the ditch from the parking lot (see photos and the segments on the map marked “sandy ditch”), and toward the road shoulder. Surface water infiltrates quickly and vegetation cover is patchy, with exposed areas that provide little cover from predators.
7. In the unlikely event that a frog successfully makes its way through sub-optimal habitat and road crossings, it would then have to leave the relative protection of the willow-covered ditch to cross 110 feet of Highway 1 to the east side, exposed to traffic of varying rates of flow depending on time of day. Such an occurrence would be a random event occurring at very low frequency, if at all, and not typical foraging behavior of frogs seeking prey or moisture refugia. More than likely, any frog attempting to cross the highway would be killed.
8. The City of Pacifica recently constructed its wet-weather equalization basin adjacent to the proposed project, with identical proximity to wetlands that occur on the study area, and closer to the suggested movement pathway. During construction, the City’s contractor employed the same wildlife exclusion barrier fencing as standard avoidance and minimization measures that are proposed to be included in the project. A wildlife biologist routinely monitored and inspected the perimeter fence for two years, and did not detect any CRLF. In addition, pre-construction surveys and burrow excavations were completed, with negative results. If present on the study area, or if moving toward it using the route suggested by Dr. Baye, dispersing CRLF would likely have been observed at some point being impeded or redirected by the fence during the considerable number of hours of monitoring conducted (as were Pacific chorus frogs, a common species). No CRLF were observed.
The conditions along the possible dispersal route present a number of risks of exposure, vehicle traffic, and predation. The discontinuity of habitat, particularly several stretches of pavement to be crossed, presents substantial physical obstacles to CRLF movement. The literature cited by Monk and Baye describe patterns of CRLF movement that are inconsistent with the route proposed by Dr. Baye, which would require frogs to move away from areas with protective cover, food, and access to the core breeding site in San Pedro Creek into an area that lacks those resources, and presents considerable risk of mortality. Based on the evidence, there is no likelihood of impacts to CRLF habitat or the potential for take of CRLF.
The primary constituent elements in the Recovery Plan and cited above are not present. Therefore, avoidance and minimization measures for CRLF are not warranted. However, to further minimize the potential for take of CRLF during construction, wildlife exclusion fencing would be erected between wetlands on the southern portion of the City and Murphy parcels and the building envelope on the northern portion of the parcels, consistent with mitigation identified in the IS/MND.
Saltmarsh common yellowthroat
Regulatory Status: FESA: none; CESA: none; CDFW: none (full species); USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern; Global/State rarity ranking: G5T3/S3.
1.b
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
14 Description: Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa, hereafter SCY) is a California Species of Special Concern30, a Bird Species of Conservation concern31, and is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code32. Species assigned a ranking of S3 are considered vulnerable, at risk of extirpation in California due to fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent or widespread declines, threats, or other factors (CDFW, 2015c). Impacts to nesting saltmarsh common yellowthroat would be a significant adverse impact pursuant to the statutes and guidelines of CEQA; impacts should be addressed in environmental review documents. Impact avoidance measures are warranted, as outlined in the Recommendations section, below.
SCY is a small bird with an olive-brown back and rich yellow throat. This migratory bird ranges from Canada to southern Mexico and winters from the southern United States to the West Indies and Panama. A year-round resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, the SCY inhabits dense vegetation in wetlands, marshes, estuaries, prairies and riparian areas of San Francisco and San Pablo bays, and along the coastal areas of Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties33.
SCY requires thick, continuous cover down to the water surface for foraging and tall grasses, tule patches or willows for nesting, and forage on insects and spiders on the ground or within dense vegetation34. Nests are built near the base of dense vegetation, sometimes over water35. Breeding occurs from mid-March to late July, and pairs typically double-brood22, 24.
Critical Habitat: The SCY is not listed under FESA; therefore, Critical Habitat has not been designated for the species.
Habitat Suitability and Probability of Occurrence: The 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis referenced the nearest known record (CNNDB Occ. #5) which is 1.8 miles north of the study area, and acknowledged the potential for the willows on the site to provide migratory habitat, but stated that the study area is not expected to provide nesting habitat due to its small area and urban setting. Field observations during the July 2020 survey agree with this, but also note the absence of proximity to water that is usually associated with SCY nests, which further supports the conclusion that the study area is not high-quality nesting habitat for this species. SCY was observed in the study area during monitoring of the City’s wet-weather equalization basin in 2017-201836, although its nesting status was not determined. 30 CDFW. 2020d. Ibid. 31 USFWS. 2020. Ibid. 32 § 3503
33 Shuford, W.D. and T.G. Gardali. Eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern. A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Studies of Western Birds No. 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 65 pp. Available on line at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83841 34 Guzy, M. J. and G. Ritchison (2020). Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.comyel.01 35 Baicich and Harrison, 2005. Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds. Second Edition. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 347 pp. 36 Patrick Kobernus, pers. comm. with C. Rogers. July 20, 2020.
1.b
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
15 Potential Project-Related Effects: Due to the marginal value of nesting habitat, the species may use the willow thicket within the study area for occasional foraging by periodic transitory individuals. Although the removal or pruning of willows on site is not proposed, disturbance from construction activities could result in direct and indirect impacts on breeding SCY and other migratory birds. Disturbance during the nesting season could result in the potential nest abandonment and mortality of young, which would be a significant adverse effect pursuant to CEQA. Impact avoidance measures are warranted and are outlined in the Recommendations Section, below.
Migratory Birds and Raptors
In addition to special-status birds identified within five miles of the study area in the CNDDB, the USFWS IPaC database also identified 21 species of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty act and Bald Eagle Protection Act, and are considered Bird Species of Conservation Concern. The IPaC database query results are included in the Attachments. Of the 19 species listed, two raptors (bald eagle and golden eagle) are not expected to occur in the study area based on lack of suitable habitat. Eight species are not expected to occur in the study area because they are marine birds or shorebirds (black oystercatcher, black turnstone, Clark’s grebe, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, short-billed dowitcher, whimbrel, and willet). Suitable nesting habitat for three species (Nuttall’s woodpecker, oak titmouse, and tri-colored blackbird) is not present in the study area. The remaining six species (Allen’s hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, song sparrow, spotted towhee, wrentit, and saltmarsh common yellowthroat) have low probability of nesting in the study area, but cannot be entirely ruled out. Saltmarsh common yellowthroat is discussed in detail above. Impact avoidance measures are warranted and are outlined in the Recommendations Section, below.
Other Special-Status Species
In addition to the special-status species identified within five miles of the study area in the CNDDB query, several additional special-status species were identified in the USFWS and CNPS database searches. These database searches do not include site-specific observations, but instead document species that may occur nearby based on location or that have been observed within the same USGS quadrangle maps. In addition to those listed in CNDDB, the USFWS IPaC database identified the following federal listed species for which no habitat is present in the study area: two mammals that are limited to marine or tidal saltmarsh habitats (southern sea otter and salt marsh harvest mouse); four bird species of marine, beach or tidal wetland habitats (California Ridgway’s rail [formerly California clapper rail], California least tern, marbled murrelet, and western snowy plover; two reptiles (green sea turtle, San Francisco garter snake); one fish (tidewater goby), one insect (monarch butterfly), and three plants (Hickman’s potentilla, San Mateo woolly sunflower, and white-rayed pentachaeta). The study area also is not within any critical habitat designated for federal listed species. The results of the USFWS IPaC query are provided in the attachments.
A query of the CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (accessed in June, 2023) generated a list of 69 plant species that have been documented as occurring on the Montara Mountain and San Francisco South USGS quadrangle maps. Thirty plant species identified by CNDDB as occurring within five miles of the study area are included in the CNPS Inventory results as well. These species have no or very low potential to occur on the project parcels due to the absence of suitable habitat, soils, or because they are perennial plants that would have been observed if present.
Three additional plant species harlequin lotus [Hosackia gracilis], serpentine leptosiphon [Leptosiphon ambiguus], and broad-lobed leptosiphon [Leptosiphon latisectus]) only appear in the CNPS
1.b
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
16 Inventory search. The latter two species occupy habitat that is not present within the project vicinity (i.e., woodland, forest, coastal scrub, serpentine grassland). Harlequin lotus occurs in a wide range of habitats, usually in wetlands (including marshes and wet grasslands); therefore, there is potential for this species to occur in the wetland portion of the study area. However, this habitat would not be impacted by the proposed project. Additionally, all three of these species have a California Rare Plant Rank of 4.2 or 4.3, which typically does not warrant further consideration under CEQA.
The remaining 36 plant species are not considered to have potential to occur in the study area due to lack of suitable habitat (such as chaparral, coastal dunes and scrubs, undisturbed or native grasslands, forest and woodlands, chaparral), absence of specialized soils (such as soils derived from serpentinite), distance from well-documented range of occurrence, or because they are perennial plants that would have been detected at the time of the survey. The results of the CNPS Inventory query are provided in the attachments.
RECCOMENDATIONS
As described above, marginally suitable habitat is present on the study area for one special-status animal species, saltmarsh common yellowthroat. In addition, raptors and other migratory bird species protected under state and federal law, if nesting on or near the study area during construction, could be adversely affected by the project. These effects could be reduced to a lessthan-significant level with incorporation of the following project design features included as part of the proposed project.
1. Special-Status and Migratory Birds
Removal or pruning of willow trees and shrubs or other vegetation associated with the arroyo willow scrub is limited to a small area at the northern edge of this vegetation type on the project parcels. No removal of emergent marsh vegetation is proposed. Construction of the project would temporarily increase noise and human activity levels that could result in indirect impacts on birds by disrupting breeding or causing abandonment of occupied nests. If present at the time of construction, such indirect impacts on special-status and migratory birds, including saltmarsh common yellowthroat, would be considered significant pursuant to CEQA.
The 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis recommended, and we concur, that a pre-construction survey be conducted prior to site grading or other construction work if this work occurs between February 1 and August 31 (the CDFW-designated nesting season for birds) to ensure that if saltmarsh common yellowthroat or any other migratory birds nest are nesting near the study area, they will not be affected by the proposed project. If an active nest is discovered, a protective buffer should be designated by a qualified biologist 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.
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 should be implemented prior to the commencement of construction activities. With the incorporation of the measures outlined below, potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level pursuant to CEQA.
1.b
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
17 1. If construction activities are scheduled to occur outside of the breeding season (i.e., September 1 through January 31), no pre-construction 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 should be conducted of the wharf structures, the identified work area and a buffer zone (see #3, below). The survey should 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 m (250 ft) for raptors and 33 m (100 ft) for passerines should be mapped.
3. For any active nests found near the construction limits (76 m [250 ft] for raptors and 33 m [100 ft] for passerines), the project biologist should 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 should 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 will 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 should be monitored by a qualified biologist to document 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 long longer occupied.
For raptors, the CDFW and/or the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management should be contacted for guidance.
2. Temporary Sediment and Debris Barrier and Wildlife Exclusion Fence Prior to the start of construction, a temporary sediment and debris barrier will be installed on the southern limit of the construction area that slopes toward the arroyo willow and emergent wetland habitat (see Figure 3). The fence also will double as a wildlife exclusion fence during construction. The fence will consist of standard construction silt fence material with a height of 36 inches.
The lower six inches of fence material will 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.
1.b
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
18 ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1. Study Area Location
Figure 2. Study Area Boundary
Figure 3. Habitat Map
Figure 4. Special-Status Plants within Five Miles of the Study Area Figure 5. Special-Status Animals within Five Miles of the Study Area Figure 6. Sensitive Natural Communities within Five Miles of the Study Area Figure 7. California Red-Legged Frog Migration Route
Photographs
Table 1. Special-Status Plant Species within Five Miles of the Study Area Table 2. Special-Status Animal Species within Five Miles of the Study Area Database Search Results:
− California Natural Diversity Data Base – Plants
− California Natural Diversity Data Base – Animals
− California Natural Diversity Data Base – Sensitive Natural Communities − U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) − California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
1.b
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
19 Figure 1. Study Area Location
0 0
0.075
0.1 0.2
1:9,028
0.15 August 7, ,2020
0.4 km
h
Study Area Location ◊
"'
,, Sources : Esri, HERE, Garmin, lntermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, ~ .USGS, FAQ, NPS, NRCAN , GeoBase , IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance, s'i'.Jrvin, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong}, (c} OpenStreetMap CI contributors, and the GIS User Community, BOB
1.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
20 Figure 2. Study Area Boundary
N
1.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
21 Figure 3. Habitat Map
N ---- Parcel Line Bounda,y Disturbed/Ornamental AWS-2 0.45 A 0 50 100
c::J Study Area -Freshwater Emergent Marsh AWS-3 0.02
AWS-NON·JD 0.08
Ve getation Non-native Grassland NNG-1 0.39
Arroyo Willow Scrub Seasonal Wetland SW-1 0.06
Feet - FEM·l 0.24
Arroyo Willow Scrub (non-JD) DO-1 0.50
00-3 0.42 DO-2 0.01
Source: Bing Maps Hybrid (accessed 9(28/2020)
1.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
22 Figure 4. Special-Status Plants within Five Miles of the Study Area LEGEND
ALPE - Allium peninsulare ssp. franciscana
ARMO - Arctostaphylos montara
ARRE - Arctostaphylos regismontana
CEPA - Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi
GIAN - Cirsium andrewsii
COMU - Collinsia multicolor
DIOC - Dirca occidentalis
FRLI - Fritillaria liliacea
GRHI - Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima
HECO - Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta
HOCU - Horkelia cuneata var. cuneata
HOCU - Horlelia marinensis
LACA - Lasthenia califomica ssp. m
LERO - Leptosiphon rosaceus
MAAR - Malacothamnus arcu us
POHi - Potentilla hickmanii
PLCH - Plagiobothrys chor, sianus var. c.
SISC - Silene scouleri ss . scouleri
SIVE - Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda
TRFL - Triphysaria flori unda
5-mile buffer/
GRHI
6 N
1:144,448
0 1.25 2.5 5mi
0 2 4 8km
August 11, 2020
Sources : Esri, HERE, Garmin, lntermap, increment P CO[ljr ~EBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN , GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster L, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan , METI , Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, BOB
1.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
23 Figure 5. Special-Status Animals within Five Miles of the Study Area Figure 6. Sensitive Natural Communities within Five Miles of the Study Area LEGEND
AB - American badger
ASSP - Alameda song sparrow
BFB - big free-tailed bat
CRLF - California red-legged frog
FM - fringed myotis
FYLF - foothill yellow-legged frog
HB - hoary bat
MER - merlin
NAP - North American porcupine
SFGS - San Francisco garter snake (occs.
protected throughout region)
SH - steelhead
SMCY - saltmarsh common yellowthroat
TBB - Townsend's big-eared bat
_\
N
0 0
BFB
CRLF
5-mile buffer/
CRLF
1:144,448
1.25 2.5 5mi
2 4 8km
August 11, 2020
I. ss ~ h
• 1
Sources: Esri, HERE, Gannin, lnte ma"', ·rrFrement P Corp., GEa.to, USGS, FAQ, NPS, NRCAN, Ged!Ml~e-; Gj , Kadaster NL, Or'l_r,ance Survey. Esri Japan, METI , Esri c'lf~,(1-tong Kong), (c) R ~en~treetMap contributors, and the GIS User Co nity, B DB
1.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
24 Figure 7. California Red-Legged Frog Migration Route LEGEND
NCS - Northern coastal saltmarsh
NMC - Northern maritime chaparral
SBG - Serpentine bunchgrass grassland
VNG - valley needlegrass grassland
0 0
1.25 1:144,448
2.5 2 4
August 11 , 2020
S mi
8km Sources : Esri, HERE, Garmin, lnteL,map , increment P Corp., GEato, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoiJase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Orcirnance Survey, Esri Japan , METI , Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) ~i:teliStreelMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, BDB
1.b
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
25 1.b
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
26 Photographs of California Red-Legged Frog Migration Route S CRLF breeding site, San Pedro Creek between Hwy 1 and San Pedro Ave.
S Grass swale looking toward San Pedro Creek, between Hwy 1 (L) and San Pedro Ave (R).
1.b
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
27 S Willow thicket with dense canopy cover. S Sandy ditch with moderate cover.
1.b
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis – 2023 Update
540 and 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA
28 S Ditch segment with low to no cover and rapid infiltration of surface water.
S Ditch segment with good cover, no culvert, loose sand entering from left.
1.b
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis - 2023 Update 29
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
S Parking lot driveway with no culvert or cover, and loose sand.
S Highway 1 at crossing to east side from willow covered ditch; 570 Crespi is in background.
1.b
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis - 2023 Update 30
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Table 1. Special-status plants within five miles of the study area.
Scientific Name
Common Name Status1
Flowering
Period Habitat Area Locations Probability in Study Area Blasdale's bent grass
Agrostis blasdalei
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
May-July Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, coastal
prairie.
Located 4.8 miles south
of study area, on
coastal bluff in Moss
Beach (Occ. #60).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Not observed
during July 2020 site
visit.
Franciscan onion
Allium peninsulare
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
May-June Woodland, grassland;
clay soils, often on serpentine.
Located 3.4 miles east
of study area, near San
Andreas Lake. Occ.
#20).
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Arctostaphylos montaraensis
Montara manzanita
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
Jan-March Maritime chaparral and
coastal scrub.
Located 1.8-2.0 miles
south to southeast of
study area, on and
around Montara Mountain (Occ. #2).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Not observed
during July 2020 site
visit.
Kings Mountain manzanita
Arctostaphylos regismontana
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
Jan-April Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, north
coast coniferous forest.
Granitic or sandstone
outcrops.
Located 2.5 miles south
of study area, on Peak
Mountain and Montara
Mountain (Occ. #15).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Not observed
during July 2020 site
visit.
Centromadia parryi
ssp. parryi
pappose tarplant
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
May-Nov Coastal prairie; meadows a
seeps; marshes and swam
nally wet grassland (somet
kaline).
Located 0.3 mile south
from the study area
(Occurrence #1).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Perennial plant,
would have been seen if
present. Not observed
during July 2020 site
visit.
Cirsium andrewsii
Franciscan thistle
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
June-July Broadleafed upland forest;
coastal bluff scrub
(sometimes serpentinite).
Located 1.0 mile west
from the study area
(Occ. #2).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Would have
been evident if present;
not observed.
Chorizanthe cuspidata var.
cuspidata
San Francisco Bay spineflower
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
April-July Coastal bluff scrub; coasta
coastal prairie; coastal scru
(sandy)
Located 1.9 miles north
from the study area
(Occ. #2).
Very low. Sandy soils
present, but species not
observed during July
2020 survey.
Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
March-May Closed-cone coniferous
forest; shady scrub forest,
scrub.
Located 1.0 mile west
from study area (Occ.
#13).
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
.
Dirca occidentalis
Western leatherwood
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
Jan-April Chaparral; riparian,
broadleaf, and coniferous
woodlands and forests;
(mesic locations).
Located 2 miles SE from
study area (Occ. #53).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Shrub/small
tree, would have been
evident if present. Not
observed.
Eriophyllum latilobum
San Mateo woolly sunflower
Fed: FE
CA: CE
CRPR: 1B.1
May-June Woodland, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous forest.
Located 4.5 miles ESE,
from study area (Occ.
#6), near San Andreas
Lake.
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Perennial shrub,
would have been evident
if present. Not observed.
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
Feb-April Coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland,
coastal prairie, woodland, often on serpentine soil, usually on clay soil.
Located 5 miles SE of
study area (Occ. #37),
near Pilarcitos Lake.
Not present. No suitable
soil or habitat.
Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima
San Francisco gumplant
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 3.2
June-Sept Coastal scrub, coastal
bluff scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
Located 2.75 miles S of
study area, near Gray
Whale Cove (Occ. #11).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Perennial plant,
would have been evident
if present. Not observed.
Hemizonia congesta
ssp. congesta
Fed: none
State: none
April-Nov Valley and foothill grassland. Historic collection (1909; Occ. #1). Entire
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Not observed.
1.b
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis - 2023 Update 31
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Scientific Name
Common Name Status1
Flowering
Period Habitat Area Locations Probability in Study Area hayfield tarweed CRPR: 1B.2 area is developed, likely
extirpated.
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg’s horkelia
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.1
Feb-July Coastal dunes (mesic),
coastal scrub, coastal
salt marshes,
streamsides.
Historic locations near
Colma (Occ. #30), and
recent observations ~2
miles S of study area
near Montara Mtn.
(Occ. #60).
Not present. No suitable
habitat; perennial plant,
would have been observed if present.
Horkelia marinensis
Point Reyes horkelia
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
May-Sept Sandy flats and dunes
near coast; coastal
dunes, coastal prairie,
coastal scrub.
Historic locations near
San Bruno (1962, Occ.
#26) and Colma (1909,
Occ. #33).
Not present. No suitable
habitat; perennial plant,
would have been observed if present.
Hosackia gracilis
harlequin lotus
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 4.2
Mar-July Coastal scrub, coastal
bluff scrub, coastal prairie, closed-cone pine forest, woodland, meadows, seeps, marshes and swamps, grasslands; usually in wetlands.
Recent observations in
Moss Beach, on bluffs
4.8 miles south of the
study area (Calflora
2019).
Low. Potentially suitable
habitat in transition from
emergent marsh to
grassland, outside of project footprint. Not observed.
Hypogymnia schizidiata
Island rock lichen
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.3
n/a Chaparral, closed-cone
coniferous forest, on
bark of hardwood shubs.
Located 2 miles S of
study area near McNee
Ranch St. Park and Peak
Mtn. (Occs. #5, 6, 7)
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Lasthenia californica
ssp. macrantha
perennial goldfields
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
Jan-Nov Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, coastal
scrub.
Located in coastal prairie 3.5 miles S of study
area on bluffs in Moss
Beach (Occ. #45) and
1.5 miles SW on Devil’s
Slide trail (Occ. #46),
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Hosackia gracilis
harlequin lotus
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 4.2
Mar-July Coastal scrub, coastal
bluff scrub, coastal prairie, closed-cone pine forest, woodland, meadows, seeps, marshes and swamps, grasslands; usually in wetlands.
Recent observations in
Moss Beach, on bluffs
4.8 miles south of the
study area (Calflora
2019).
Low. Potentially suitable
habitat in transition from
emergent marsh to
grassland, outside of project footprint. Not observed.
Leptosiphon croceus
Coast yellow leptosiphon
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.1
April-May Only known from five
locations. Open, grassy
areas, coastal bluffs,
Located on bluffs 4.8
miles south from the
study area (Occ. #2).
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Leptosiphon latisectus
broad-lobed leptosiphon
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 4.3
Apr-June Upland forest and woodland. Historic collections near Lake Merced; not
known from San Mateo
Co.
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Leptosiphon rosaceus
rose leptosiphon
Fed: none
CA: CE
CRPR: 1B.1
April-July Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, coastal
prairie.
Historic collections
(1903 and 1950), near
Montara Pt., 4.4 miles S
of study area. Possibly
extirpated.
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Malacothamnus arcuatus
arcuate bush mallow
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
April-Sept Chaparral and woodland. Located 2.6 miles NE of study area (Occ. #20)
near San Bruno, and 4.2
miles SE (Occ. #32) near
Pilarcitos Lake (historical occurrence, 1902).
Not present. No suitable
habitat. Perennial shrub,
would have been evident
if present. Not observed.
Monolopia gracilens
woodland monolopia
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
March-July Grassy openings in chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane
woodland, broadleafed
upland forest, North
Coast coniferous forest.
Historic collection
(1949) near Pilarcitos
Lake, 5 miles SE of
study area (Occ. #40).
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
1.b
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis - 2023 Update 32
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Scientific Name
Common Name Status1
Flowering
Period Habitat Area Locations Probability in Study Area Pentachaeta bellidiflora
white-rayed pentachaeta
Fed: FE
CA: CE
CRPR: 1B.1
March-May Valley and foothill grassland, woodland. Near San Skyline Boulevard, Andreas Lake, 4.3 miles E of study area
(Occ. #2). Presumed extirpated.
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Plagiobothrys chorisianus
var. chorisianus
Choris’s popcorn flower
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
March-June Chaparral, coastal scrub,
coastal prairie.
Located on Sweeney
Ridge 3 miles E of study
area (Occ. #10) and 2.5
miles NE (Occ. #9), and
in Montara, 3.7 miles S
(Occ. #43).
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Potentilla hickmanii
Hickman’s cinquefoil
Fed: FE
CA: CE
CRPR: 1B.1
April-Aug Coastal bluff scrub,
closed-cone coniferous
forest, meadows and
seeps (vernally mesic),
freshwater marshes.
Located north of Montara, 3 miles S of study
area (Occ. #6).
Not present. No suitable
habitat; perennial plant,
would have been observed if present.
Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri
simple campion
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 2B.2
May-Aug Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal prairie, valley
and foothill grassland.
Nearest population is 1
mile SW of study area,
on Pedro Point (Occ.
#2)
Not present. No suitable
habitat; perennial plant,
would have been observed if present.
Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda
San Francisco campion
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.2
March-July Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
Nearest population is
1.9 miles SW of study
area along Devil’s Slide
trail.
Not present. No suitable
habitat; perennial plant,
would have been observed if present.
Trifolium amoenum
showy Indian clover
Fed: FE
State: none
CRPR: 1B.1
April-June Valley and foothill grassland, coastal bluff scrub.
Sometimes on serpentine soil,
Historic record (1907)
near Colma, location
not specific. Likely extirpated.
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Triphysaria floribunda
San Francisco owl’s clover
Fed: none
CA: none
CRPR: 1B.2
April-June Coastal prairie, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, usually on serpentine soil
Several historic records;
nearest on Skyline
Boulevard 3.5 miles NE
of study area (Occ. #49)
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
Triquetrella californica
California triquetrella moss
Fed: none
State: none
CRPR: 1B.2
n/a Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal scrub, grasslands,
on gravel or thin soil.
Located 2 miles E of
study area (Occ. #8).
Not present. No suitable
habitat.
1.b
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis - 2023 Update 33
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Table 2. Special-status wildlife within five miles of the study area.
Scientific Nome
Common Name Status' Habitat Proximity to Study Area Probability In Study Area
INSECTS
Monarch butterfly' Fed: none Winters in tall trees along Nearest overwintering site None. Migration and Danaus plexippus State: none the coast. Prefers is Martini Creek near overwintering roosts are Other: S eucalyptus, Monterey pine Montara State Beach, ~3 highly visible and welland Monterey cypress. miles SSW of study area documented. Not present in (data from suppressed study area.
records in CNDDB).
San Bruno elfin butterfly' Fed: FE Coastal mountainous areas Located 1.9 miles south of None. No suitable habitat on Callophrys mossii boyensis State: none with grassy ground cover, the study area (occ. #14). or adjacent to study area.
Other: none mainly in the vicinity of San Host plant not present.
Bruno Mt., San Mateo Co.,
on steep north-facing slopes
within the fog belt. Larval
host plant is Sedum
spothulifolium.
Myrtle's si lverspot butterfly Fed: FE Coastal terrace prairie, Nearest record mile north None. No suitable habitat Speyeria zerene myrtleoe State: none coastal bluff scrub, and non- from study area (0cc. #13). present on or adjacent to Other: none native grassland in Marin study area. Host plant not and SW Sonoma Counties. present.
Extirpated from San Mateo
County. Larval food plant is
Viola odunco.
FISH
Steelhead - Central California Fed: FT From Russian River south to Located 0.3 mile S of study None. No suitable habitat Coast DPS - Population 8 State: none Soquel Creek, Pajaro River. area in San Pedro Creek present.
Other: none Also in SF and San Pablo Bay (0cc. #12)
basins. Spawn in clear, cool
well-oxygenated streams
greater than 18 cm deep.
AMPHIBIANS
Foothill yellow-legged frog Fed: FE Partly-shaded, shallow Historic and non-specific No suitable habitat present.
Rana boy/ii State: streams and riffles with a record, near San Andreas Other: rocky substrate in a variety Lake (0cc. #2133),
of habitats. considered extirpated.
California red-legged frog Fed: FT Lowlands and foothills in Nearest record 0.3 mile S None. Wetland in study area Rana draytonii State: SSC pools and streams, usually of study area in San Pedro dries in late spring or early Other: with emergent wetland Creek (0cc. #652). summer (no significant vegetation. Requires 11-20 ponding in 2020), therefore
weeks of permanent water not suitable breeding
for larval development. habitat. This urban infill site is isolated from nearest
population, with no
migration potential.
REPTILES
San Francisco garter snake Fed: FE Freshwater marshes, ponds Closest record is 1 mile None. Seasonal wetland on Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia State: CE and slow-moving streams north of the study area and immediately adjacent to Other: none on the SF peninsula. Prefers (0cc. #45, CNDDB project site dries late in dense cover and water suppressed records). Spring or
depths of at least 1 ft. Locations in Pacifica area early summer, and is isolated are all sites that support from extant suitable habitats aquatic habitats that by surrounding
remain inundated. development.
1.b
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Wood Biological Consulting
Biological Constraints Analysis - 2023 Update 34
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Scientific Name
Common Name
BIRDS
Merlin
Falco columbarius
Saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
MAMMALS
American badger
Taxidea taxus
North American porcupine
Erethizon dorsatum
Townsend's big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
Fringed myotis
Myotis thysanodes
Big free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops macrotis
1 Status
Federal:
FE - Federal Endangered
FT - Federal Threatened
Status'
Fed: none
State: WL
Other: LC
Fed: none
State: SSC
Other: BCC
Fed: none
State: SSC
Other: BCC
Fed: none
State: none
Other: LC
Fed : none
State: none
Other: LC
Fed : none
State: SSC
Other: LC
Fed: none
State: SSC
Other: LC
Fed: none
State: none
Other: LC
Fed: none
State: CSC
Other: LC
2 Included in 2014 Biological Constraints
Analysis, but not within 5 miles of study area
according to CNDDB 2020.
Habitat
Seacoast, tidal estuaries,
open woodlands,
savannahs, edges of
grasslands and deserts,
farms and ranches. Clumps
of trees or windbreaks are
required for roosting in
open country.
Resident of freshwater and
salt water marshes in the SF
Bay region . Requires dense,
continuous cover for
foraging and tall grasses,
tules, or willows for nesting.
Resident of salt marshes
bordering San Francisco
Bay.
Scrub, forest, and
herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils.
Forest, woodland,
occasionally grassland and
scrub.
Roosts in the open, hanging
from walls and ceilings.
Roosting sites limiting.
Extremely sensitive to
human disturbance.
Roosts in dense foliage in
medium to large trees.
Preferred sites are hidden
from above, with few
branches below, and have
ground cover of low
reflectivity.
Uses caves, mines, buildings
or crevices for maternity
colonies and roosts.
Roosts in crevices in rocky
outcrops and cliffs, although
there is some,
documentation of roosts in
buildings, caves, and tree
cavities.
State:
CE - California Endangered
CT - California Threatened
CR • California Rare
CC - California Candidate
Proximity to Study Area
Record for this species
located 1.2 miles
northeast from the project
site {0cc. #12).
Record for this species
located 1.8 mile north
from the project site {0cc.
#5).
Two historic records {1940,
0cc. #23; and 1947, 0cc.
#32) from near Colma.
One record from 1948
near Peak Mtn., 2.6 miles
SSE {0cc. #127).
One record from 1972
(0cc. #430) in Daly City.
Site since developed.
Nearest record is 4 miles
east of study area {0cc.
#431). Building since
demolished.
Record for this species
located 2 miles north from
the project site (0cc.
#120).
Nearest record is near
Crystal Springs Reservoir
(0cc. #44).
One record for this species
from 1984 located 1 mile
northwest from the
project site (0cc. #20).
CSC - California Species of Special Concern
FP - Fully Protected
WL - Watch List. Not protected pursuant to CEQA
Probability In Study Area
None. Does not nest in
California. Migrating birds
would not be affected by
proposed project.
Observed during 2017-2018.
Willow scrub in study area
could provide migration
habitat, but is only a small,
limited area of suitable
habitat in an urban setting.
Not expected to support
nesting birds (see text).
No suitable habitat present.
No suitable habitat.
No suitable habitat in study
area, or connectivity to
habitat.
No suitable habitat present.
Large cypress trees in study
area are marginally suitable
for day roosting, but not as
maternal roosting habitat.
Not expected to be
impacted.
No suitable habitat present.
None. No rocky habitat for
roosting which is the primary
roosting habitat.
Other:
LC - IUCN Least Concern
BCC - USFWS Bird species of
Conservation Concern
S - USFWS Sensitive
1.b
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Agrostis blasdalei
Blasdale's bent grass
PMPOA04060 None None G2G3 S2 1B.2
Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum
Franciscan onion
PMLIL021R1 None None G4G5T2 S2 1B.2
Amsinckia lunaris
bent-flowered fiddleneck
PDBOR01070 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Arctostaphylos franciscana
Franciscan manzanita
PDERI040J3 Endangered None GHC S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos imbricata
San Bruno Mountain manzanita
PDERI040L0 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos montana ssp. ravenii
Presidio manzanita
PDERI040J2 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos montaraensis
Montara manzanita
PDERI042W0 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Arctostaphylos pacifica
Pacific manzanita
PDERI040Z0 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos regismontana
Kings Mountain manzanita
PDERI041C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus
coastal marsh milk-vetch
PDFAB0F7B2 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
Carex comosa
bristly sedge
PMCYP032Y0 None None G5 S2 2B.1
Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi
pappose tarplant
PDAST4R0P2 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata
San Francisco Bay spineflower
PDPGN04081 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta
robust spineflower
PDPGN040Q2 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1
Cirsium andrewsii
Franciscan thistle
PDAST2E050 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Cirsium occidentale var. compactum
compact cobwebby thistle
PDAST2E1Z1 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.2
Collinsia corymbosa
round-headed collinsia
PDSCR0H060 None None G1 S1 1B.2
Collinsia multicolor
San Francisco collinsia
PDSCR0H0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Montara Mountain (3712254)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>San Francisco South (3712264))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>Taxonomic Group<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Ferns<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Gymnosperms<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Monocots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Dicots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lichens<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Bryophytes) Query Criteria:
Report Printed on Wednesday, June 07, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 2 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 12/2/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database t!J 1.b
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood
PDTHY03010 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Eriophyllum latilobum
San Mateo woolly sunflower
PDAST3N060 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana
Hillsborough chocolate lily
PMLIL0V0M1 None None G3G4T1 S1 1B.1
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis
blue coast gilia
PDPLM040B3 None None G5T2 S2 1B.1
Gilia millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia
PDPLM04130 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima
San Francisco gumplant
PDAST470D3 None None G5T1Q S1 3.2
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
PDAST4M020 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta
congested-headed hayfield tarplant
PDAST4R0W1 None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia
short-leaved evax
PDASTE5011 None None G4T3 S3 1B.2
Heteranthera dubia
water star-grass
PMPON03010 None None G5 S2 2B.2
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
PDROS0W043 None None G4T1? S1? 1B.1
Horkelia marinensis
Point Reyes horkelia
PDROS0W0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Hypogymnia schizidiata
island tube lichen
NLT0032640 None None G2G3 S2 1B.3
Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha
perennial goldfields
PDAST5L0C5 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Layia carnosa
beach layia
PDAST5N010 Threatened Endangered G2 S2 1B.1
Leptosiphon croceus
coast yellow leptosiphon
PDPLM09170 None Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Leptosiphon rosaceus
rose leptosiphon
PDPLM09180 None None G1 S1 1B.1
Lessingia arachnoidea
Crystal Springs lessingia
PDAST5S0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Lessingia germanorum
San Francisco lessingia
PDAST5S010 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Limnanthes douglasii ssp. ornduffii
Ornduff's meadowfoam
PDLIM02039 None None G4T1 S1 1B.1
Report Printed on Wednesday, June 07, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 2 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 12/2/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database t!J 1.b
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Malacothamnus arcuatus
arcuate bush-mallow
PDMAL0Q0E0 None None G2Q S2 1B.2
Monardella sinuata ssp. nigrescens
northern curly-leaved monardella
PDLAM18162 None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads
PDAST6G010 None None G3 S3 1B.2
Pentachaeta bellidiflora
white-rayed pentachaeta
PDAST6X030 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus
Choris' popcornflower
PDBOR0V061 None None G3T1Q S1 1B.2
Polemonium carneum
Oregon polemonium
PDPLM0E050 None None G3G4 S2 2B.2
Potentilla hickmanii
Hickman's cinquefoil
PDROS1B370 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
Sanicula maritima
adobe sanicle
PDAPI1Z0D0 None Rare G2 S2 1B.1
Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2
Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri
Scouler's catchfly
PDCAR0U1MC None None G5T4T5 S2S3 2B.2
Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda
San Francisco campion
PDCAR0U213 None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
Suaeda californica
California seablite
PDCHE0P020 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Trifolium amoenum
two-fork clover
PDFAB40040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1
Triphysaria floribunda
San Francisco owl's-clover
PDSCR2T010 None None G2? S2? 1B.2
Triquetrella californica
coastal triquetrella
NBMUS7S010 None None G2 S2 1B.2
Record Count: 55
Report Printed on Wednesday, June 07, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 2 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 12/2/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database t!J 1.b
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
green sturgeon - southern DPS
AFCAA01031 Threatened None G2T1 S1
Adela oplerella
Opler's longhorn moth
IILEE0G040 None None G2 S2
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
AMACC10010 None None G4 S3 SSC
Banksula incredula
incredible harvestman
ILARA14100 None None G1 S1
Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
IIHYM24380 None None G2G3 S1S2
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
IIHYM24252 None Candidate
Endangered
G3 S1
Brachyramphus marmoratus
marbled murrelet
ABNNN06010 Threatened Endangered G3 S2
Caecidotea tomalensis
Tomales isopod
ICMAL01220 None None G2 S2S3
Callophrys mossii bayensis
San Bruno elfin butterfly
IILEPE2202 Endangered None G4T2 S2
Cicindela hirticollis gravida
sandy beach tiger beetle
IICOL02101 None None G5T2 S2
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
AMACC08010 None None G4 S2 SSC
Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1
monarch - California overwintering population
IILEPP2012 Candidate None G4T1T2Q S2
Dicamptodon ensatus
California giant salamander
AAAAH01020 None None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Dufourea stagei
Stage's dufourine bee
IIHYM22010 None None G1G2 S1
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC
Erethizon dorsatum
North American porcupine
AMAFJ01010 None None G5 S3
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
AFCQN04010 Endangered None G3 S3
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Bay checkerspot butterfly
IILEPK4055 Threatened None G5T1 S3
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Montara Mountain (3712254)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>San Francisco South (3712264))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>Taxonomic Group<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Fish<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Amphibians<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Reptiles<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Birds<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mammals<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mollusks<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Arachnids<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Crustaceans<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Insects) Query Criteria:
Report Printed on Wednesday, June 07, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 2 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 3 Information Expires 12/2/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database t!J 1.b
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Falco columbarius
merlin
ABNKD06030 None None G5 S3S4 WL
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
ABNKD06071 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 FP
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
ABPBX1201A None None G5T3 S3 SSC
Hydroporus leechi
Leech's skyline diving beetle
IICOL55040 None None G1? S2S3
Icaricia icarioides missionensis
Mission blue butterfly
IILEPG801A Endangered None G5T2 S2
Icaricia icarioides pheres
Pheres blue butterfly
IILEPG8019 None None G5TX SX
Ischnura gemina
San Francisco forktail damselfly
IIODO72010 None None G2 S2
Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
AMACC05032 None None G3G4 S4
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus
California black rail
ABNME03041 None Threatened G3T1 S2 FP
Lichnanthe ursina
bumblebee scarab beetle
IICOL67020 None None G2 S2
Melospiza melodia pusillula
Alameda song sparrow
ABPBXA301S None None G5T2T3 S2S3 SSC
Mylopharodon conocephalus
hardhead
AFCJB25010 None None G3 S3 SSC
Myotis thysanodes
fringed myotis
AMACC01090 None None G4 S3
Nannopterum auritum
double-crested cormorant
ABNFD01020 None None G5 S4 WL
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
AMAFF08082 None None G5T2T3 S2S3 SSC
Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
AMACD04020 None None G5 S3 SSC
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8
steelhead - central California coast DPS
AFCHA0209G Threatened None G5T3Q S3
Pomatiopsis californica
Pacific walker
IMGASJ9020 None None G1 S1
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway's rail
ABNME05011 Endangered Endangered G3T1 S2 FP
Rana boylii pop. 4
foothill yellow-legged frog - central coast DPS
AAABH01054 Proposed
Threatened
Endangered G3T2 S2
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC
Report Printed on Wednesday, June 07, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 2 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 3 Information Expires 12/2/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database t!J 1.b
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ABPAU08010 None Threatened G5 S3
Speyeria callippe callippe
callippe silverspot butterfly
IILEPJ6091 Endangered None G5T1 S1
Speyeria zerene myrtleae
Myrtle's silverspot butterfly
IILEPJ608C Endangered None G5T1 S1
Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
AFCHB03010 Candidate Threatened G5 S1
Taxidea taxus
American badger
AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
San Francisco gartersnake
ARADB3613B Endangered Endangered G5T2Q S2 FP
Trachusa gummifera
San Francisco Bay Area leaf-cutter bee
IIHYM80010 None None G1 S1
Record Count: 46
Report Printed on Wednesday, June 07, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 2 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 3 Information Expires 12/2/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database t!J 1.b
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
CTT52110CA None None G3 S3.2
Northern Maritime Chaparral
Northern Maritime Chaparral
CTT37C10CA None None G1 S1.2
Serpentine Bunchgrass
Serpentine Bunchgrass
CTT42130CA None None G2 S2.2
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley Needlegrass Grassland
CTT42110CA None None G3 S3.1
Record Count: 4
Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Montara Mountain (3712254)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>San Francisco South (3712264))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>Taxonomic Group<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Dune<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Scrub<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Herbaceous<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Marsh<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Riparian<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Woodland<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Forest<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Alpine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Inland Waters<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Marine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Estuarine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Riverine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Palustrine) Query Criteria:
Report Printed on Wednesday, June 07, 2023
Commercial Version -- Dated June, 2 2023 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 1 Information Expires 12/2/2023
Selected Elements by Scientific Name
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database t!J 1.b
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
San Mateo County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
(916) 414-6600 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
1.b
Packet Pg. 188
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed speciesl and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheriesl ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for s.pecies under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status pgge. for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals
NAME
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. htq;is:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/613
Birds
STATUS
Endangered
1.b
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use NAME
California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/4240
California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/8104
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/ 4467
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/8035
Reptiles
NAME
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/6199
San Francisco Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/5956
Amphibians
NAME
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/2891
Fishes
NAME
STATUS
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
STATUS
Threatened
Endangered
STATUS
Threatened
STATUS
1.b
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/57
Insects
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/9743
Flowering Plants
NAME
Hickman's Potentilla Potentilla hickmanii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/6343
San Mateo Woolly Sunflower Eriophyllum latilobum
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/7791
White-rayed Pentachaeta Pentachaeta bellidiflora
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. httP-s:ttecos.fws.gQYLel;P-[_species/7782
Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.
There are no critical habitats at this location.
Endangered
STATUS
Candidate
STATUS
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.
1.b
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection ActZ.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migrato[Y. Birds Treacy. Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern httP-s://www.fws.gov/P-rogram/migrato[Y.-birdslsP-ecies • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds httP-s://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-andminimizing-incidental-take-migrato[Y.-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds httP-s://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwidestandard-conservation-measures.P-df The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data maP-P-ing tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/9637
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/8
BREEDING SEASON
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
1.b
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/9591
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Bullock's Oriole lcterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/2084
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/1680
Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/3631
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/9481
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/941 O
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
BreedsJan 1 to Jul 31
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
1.b
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/9656
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/3914
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s:/ /ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/9480
Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/391 O
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httP-s://ecos.fws.gov/ecP-ISP-ecies/6743
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Breeds elsewhere
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 1 O
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
1.b
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort (I)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data(- )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES
Allen's Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Belding's Savannah Sparrow
BCC-BCR
Black Oystercatcher
BCC Rangewide (CONJ
Black Turnstone
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Bullock's Oriole
BCC-BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide (CONJ
California Thrasher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Common Yellowthroat
BCC-BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
JAN
++++
IJfHtllm
++++
[I
++++
1l[ll11 ll1
FEB MAR
m~1 t1 rni l1lllll11tll
ffi~lflHI! IIIIIIHJfH
,li$+•P q1ip[jJrli
+t++
IJIIIBJII llllltlJH
APR
[lltlltllll
l@WHI
~~ ~
m~~
1 IHJHJII
MAY
101j@@
rn ~
~rnrnm ,nnr,
II
1111m~
~mm~
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort - no data
JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
11IITTITTj1~ 11n1111~1!J ++++ ' t;H+ \i I ++++ "' ++++ ++++ ~wwrn w~~~-- I ~·1m1r·\ }++1 ~-~· '\\ ~ '''"~ I. 'L
mmm~\ @~'.~,.>~lli'm •t(l][llip
"""" ,, """~ · """" @mmm
ll!lllllfl
111~~~
IH~ITT ~
m1m111
~~~~
~~m~
~ITT ITT ~
+1~iH c1i+++
m1mrn
IIBJH II I ++++
IP+++
rj]lj)nJ[ll
~Ulllllll
++++
11 ++q•+
++++
ip1p111f
++++
+++
++IP+
1p1pf
++++
II
]
•I
11 ++++
1.b
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Long-eared Owl
BCC Rangewide (CON)
SPECIES
Marbled Godwit
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Nuttall's Woodpecker
BCC-BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Olive-sided Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Short-billed Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Tricolored Blackbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Willet
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide (CON)
++++ +t++
JAN FEB
cli+++ +t++
rll[IJ[O~ rl1$rDi~
++++ +~++
++++ +t++
++++ +t++
++++ +t++
++++ t++
~ill!l1fl MAR
+++cl
OH!Jcli[I
+ffi illu
++++
++++
+IIIHJH
H
ijam
1lH1fllll
APR
+H
+++
+iji++
Hf8ffiij
+++
lll~ITTII
11fl1flHI lltlllllfl
MAY JUN
+++ ++++
•l•~ru ~WW~
+++ ++++
~mmm mmmm
]111 11110 @ITT~llll
t•H+ ++++
@111111111 1111111 11111
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. llfllflH
JU L
+•H
ru~~ru
++lj)+
ITTITTITTffi
[IIIIOIUI
+++
~111111111
++++
AUG
+
ID
++++
ijffiill~
+++
~ill++
~ruraij
+to
ij~
++++
SEP
IH+
++++
tll-1--1--1-
++++
++++
OCT
+lj)++
]11
++++
++++
++++
++++
NOV
++++
++++
++++
++++
+++•I
DEC
H++
11 +++•I
++++
++++
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or Rermits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC). and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (.Eggle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the RaRid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
1.b
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through !Pac fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mam;iing of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb SP-iegg_[ or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a P-ermit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 1 O km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
1.b
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge. system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. ArmY. Corps of Engineers District.
Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
1.b
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Dat - te, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or"products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
1.b
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Search Results
CNPS Rare Plant Inventory
69 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: Quad is one of [3712264:3712254]
▲ SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM
BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST
GLOBAL
RANK
STATE
RANK
CA RARE
PLANT
RANK
Agrostis blasdalei Blasdale's bent grass Poaceae perennial rhizomatous herb
May-Jul None None G2G3 S2 1B.2
Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum
Franciscan onion Alliaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb
(Apr)May-Jun None None G4G5T2 S2 1B.2
Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered
fiddleneck
Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G3 S3 1B.2
Arabis blepharophylla coast rockcress Brassicaceae perennial herb Feb-May None None G4 S4 4.3 Arctostaphylos
franciscana
Franciscan
manzanita
Ericaceae perennial
evergreen shrub
Feb-Apr FE None GHC S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos imbricata San Bruno Mountain
manzanita
Ericaceae perennial
evergreen shrub
Feb-May None CE G1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos montana
ssp. ravenii
Presidio manzanita Ericaceae perennial
evergreen shrub
Feb-Mar FE CE G3T1 S1 1B.1
Arctostaphylos
montaraensis
Montara manzanita Ericaceae perennial
evergreen shrub
Jan-Mar None None G1 S1 1B.2
Arctostaphylos pacifica Pacific manzanita Ericaceae evergreen shrub Feb-Apr None CE G1 S1 1B.1 Arctostaphylos
regismontana
Kings Mountain
manzanita
Ericaceae perennial
evergreen shrub
Dec-Apr None None G2 S2 1B.2
Astragalus nuttallii var.
nuttallii
ocean bluff milkvetchFabaceae perennial herb Jan-Nov None None G4T4 S4 4.2 Astragalus pycnostachyus
var. pycnostachyus
coastal marsh milkvetchFabaceae perennial herb (Apr)Jun-Oct None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Astragalus tener var.
tener
alkali milk-vetch Fabaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G2T1 S1 1B.2 Carex comosa bristly sedge Cyperaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
May-Sep None None G5 S2 2B.1
Castilleja ambigua var.
ambigua
johnny-nip Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
Mar-Aug None None G4T4 S3S4 4.2
Centromadia parryi ssp.
parryi
pappose tarplant Asteraceae annual herb May-Nov None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Chorizanthe cuspidata
var. cuspidata
San Francisco Bay
spineflower
Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jul(Aug) None None G2T1 S1 1B.2 Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta
robust spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Sep FE None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jul None None G3 S3 1B.2 • ~;■l CWroRpN::NT NATIVE SOCIETY
1.b
Packet Pg. 200 Att
h
t
ATT A
D
ft R
l
ti
EIR
E
hibit
570 C
i
251202 (6098
C
i D
i
Mi
d U
P
j
t C
id
ti
)
Cirsium occidentale var.
compactum
compact cobwebby
thistle
Asteraceae perennial herb Apr-Jun None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.2 Collinsia corymbosa round-headed
collinsia
Plantaginaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G1 S1 1B.2 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco
collinsia
Plantaginaceae annual herb (Feb)Mar-May None None G2 S2 1B.2 Cypripedium
fasciculatum
clustered lady'sslipperOrchidaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Mar-Aug None None G4 S4 4.2
Dirca occidentalis western
leatherwood
Thymelaeaceae perennial
deciduous shrub
Jan-Mar(Apr) None None G2 S2 1B.2
Elymus californicus California bottlebrush grassPoaceae perennial herb MayAug(Nov)None None G4 S4 4.3 Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly
sunflower
Asteraceae perennial herb May-Jun FE CE G1 S1 1B.1
Erysimum franciscanum San Francisco
wallflower
Brassicaceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G3 S3 4.2 Fritillaria biflora var.
ineziana
Hillsborough
chocolate lily
Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb
Mar-Apr None None G3G4T1 S1 1B.1
Fritillaria lanceolata var.
tristulis
Marin checker lily Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb
Feb-May None None G5T2 S2 1B.1
Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb
Feb-Apr None None G2 S2 1B.2
Gilia capitata ssp.
chamissonis
blue coast gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul None None G5T2 S2 1B.1 Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul None None G2 S2 1B.2 Grindelia hirsutula var.
maritima
San Francisco
gumplant
Asteraceae perennial herb Jun-Sep None None G5T1Q S1 3.2 Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Hemizonia congesta ssp.
congesta
congested-headed
hayfield tarplant
Asteraceae annual herb Apr-Nov None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Hesperevax sparsiflora
var. brevifolia
short-leaved evax Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G4T3 S3 1B.2 Heteranthera dubia water star-grass Pontederiaceae perennial herb (aquatic)
Jul-Oct None None G5 S2 2B.2
Horkelia cuneata var.
sericea
Kellogg's horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb Apr-Sep None None G4T1? S1? 1B.1 Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia Rosaceae perennial herb May-Sep None None G2 S2 1B.2 Hosackia gracilis harlequin lotus Fabaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Mar-Jul None None G3G4 S3 4.2
Hypogymnia schizidiata island tube lichen Parmeliaceae foliose lichen None None G2G3 S2 1B.3 Iris longipetala coast iris Iridaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Mar-May(Jun) None None G3 S3 4.2
Lasthenia californica ssp.
macrantha
perennial goldfields Asteraceae perennial herb Jan-Nov None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Layia carnosa beach layia Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jul FT CE G2 S2 1B.1
1.b
Packet Pg. 201 Att
h
t
ATT A
D
ft R
l
ti
EIR
E
hibit
570 C
i
251202 (6098
C
i D
i
Mi
d U
P
j
t C
id
ti
)
Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentine
leptosiphon
Polemoniaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G4 S4 4.2
Leptosiphon croceus coast yellow
leptosiphon
Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None CE G1 S1 1B.1
Leptosiphon grandiflorus large-flowered
leptosiphon
Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Aug None None G3G4 S3S4 4.2 Leptosiphon latisectus broad-lobed
leptosiphon
Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G4 S4 4.3
Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul None None G1 S1 1B.1 Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs
lessingia
Asteraceae annual herb Jul-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2
Lessingia germanorum San Francisco
lessingia
Asteraceae annual herb (Jun)Jul-Nov FE CE G1 S1 1B.1
Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed
lessingia
Asteraceae annual herb Jun-Oct None None G2G3 S2S3 3
Limnanthes douglasii ssp.
ornduffii
Ornduff's
meadowfoam
Limnanthaceae annual herb Nov-May None None G4T1 S1 1B.1 Lupinus arboreus var.
eximius
San Mateo tree
lupine
Fabaceae perennial
evergreen shrub
Apr-Jul None None G2Q S2 3.2
Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow Malvaceae perennial deciduous shrub
Apr-Sep None None G2Q S2 1B.2
Monardella sinuata ssp.
nigrescens
northern curlyleaved monardellaLamiaceae annual herb (Apr)MayJul(Aug-Sep)None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Monolopia gracilens woodland
woollythreads
Asteraceae annual herb (Feb)Mar-Jul None None G3 S3 1B.2 Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed
pentachaeta
Asteraceae annual herb Mar-May FE CE G1 S1 1B.1
Plagiobothrys chorisianus
var. chorisianus
Choris'
popcornflower
Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G3T1Q S1 1B.2 Polemonium carneum Oregon
polemonium
Polemoniaceae perennial herb Apr-Sep None None G3G4 S2 2B.2 Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinquefoil Rosaceae perennial herb Apr-Aug FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 Sanicula maritima adobe sanicle Apiaceae perennial herb Feb-May None CR G2 S2 1B.1 Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort Asteraceae annual herb Jan-Apr(May) None None G3 S2 2B.2 Silene scouleri ssp.
scouleri
Scouler's catchfly Caryophyllaceae perennial herb (MarMay)JunAug(Sep)None None G5T4T5 S2S3 2B.2 Silene verecunda ssp.
verecunda
San Francisco
campion
Caryophyllaceae perennial herb (Feb)MarJul(Aug)None None G5T1 S1 1B.2 Suaeda californica California seablite Chenopodiaceae perennial evergreen shrub
Jul-Oct FE None G1 S1 1B.1
Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun FE None G1 S1 1B.1 Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl'scloverOrobanchaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G2? S2? 1B.2 Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella Pottiaceae moss None None G2 S2 1B.2 Showing 1 to 69 of 69 entries
- ---------
----------
1.b
Packet Pg. 202 Att
h
t
ATT A
D
ft R
l
ti
EIR
E
hibit
570 C
i
251202 (6098
C
i D
i
Mi
d U
P
j
t C
id
ti
)
Suggested Citation:
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2023. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 8 June 2023].
1.b
Packet Pg. 203 Att
h
t
ATT A
D
ft R
l
ti
EIR
E
hibit
570 C
i
251202 (6098
C
i D
i
Mi
d U
P
j
t C
id
ti
)
APPENDIX D
1.b
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Updated Delineation 1
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
DATE: May 31, 2024
TO: Brendan Murphy, Eamon Murphy
BayWorks Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 301
San Mateo, CA 94401
FROM: Chris Rogers
SUBJECT: Updated Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources and Effects Analysis 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica CA
This memorandum is an updated summary of potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources (including wetlands and other waters of the United States and waters of the State of California) for the proposed development of two parcels located at 540 and 570 Crespi Drive, in Pacifica, CA (APN 022-162-420 and 022- 162-310).The parcels are owned by the City of Pacifica and by Brendan and Eamon Murphy, respectively, and are referred to here as the City parcel and the Murphy parcel (see Figures 1 and 2). The two parcels, totaling approximately 1.85 acres, are under consideration for being merged and developed by the Murphys with residential uses (the residential project).
This report was prepared at the request of the City of Pacifica Planning Department and consolidates information that has been developed over a period of several years of environmental review and provided to the City in several memoranda. The City also requested that the wetlands and other water be reevaluated to determine if their extent had changed during the preceding several years.
Wood Biological Consulting (WBC) prepared a wetland delineation report in 20201 , in response to a peer
review of the 2014 Biological Constraints Analysis2
, which recommended an update of the “aquatic resource delineation” (i.e., delineation of wetlands and other waters), and to include the City parcel in the delineation. The 2020 delineation report informed the layout of proposed development for the properties in relation to the norther edge of the willow and marsh vegetation in the central portion of the two parcels. Revisions to certain elements of the proposed project prompted additional and more detailed analysis of potentially jurisdictional areas in the southern portion of the two parcels. Additional City-owned property that will receive improvements as part of the proposed project also is included in this report. At the request of the City, an updated report on potentially jurisdictional wetlands and other waters and an analysis of effects of the project on those resources was submitted on October 27, 2023. 1 Wood Biological Consulting. 2020. Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters, 570 Crespi Avenue, Pacifica, CA. Prepared for Brendan and Eamon Murphy. Oct. 6. 2 Monk & Associates. 2014. Biological Constraints Analysis, 570 Crespi Drive, City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (APNS: 022-162-310) (~1.7 Acres). Prepared for SC Properties, San Mateo CA. October 8.
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
PO Box 1569
El Granada, CA 94018
(415) 254-4835
[email protected]
www.wood-biological.com
1.b
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 2
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
This memorandum and the methods employed to identify the wetland boundary are consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District standards for identifying federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S.3
, and state guidance for identifying waters of the state4.
METHODS
The study area for this assessment consists of the two parcels, the City parcel and the Murphy parcel, and an additional portion of the adjacent Community Center where improvements would be made as part of the project (Figure 2).
Prior to conducting field data collection, WBC reviewed relevant background information, including the 2014 biological report, the 2020 peer view, a sequence of aerial photo imagery on Google Earth, National Wetlands Inventory5
, California Aquatic Resource Inventory6, Soil Conservation Service7, Montara Mountain U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, a topographic survey map of the parcels, and environmental review documents related to the City’s recently completed Wet Weather Equalization Basin8
, which is adjacent to and due west of the City parcel.
Aquatic resources on both parcels were assessed in the field by WBC senior ecologist Chris Rogers on July 19, 2020. WBC conducted an additional assessment on March 31 and April 4, 2022, which focused on reevaluating the wetland boundary in the southern portion of the site in support of a design modification regarding an emergency drain riser. At the City’s request, the entire site was reassessed on April 5, 2023 to determine whether the wetland boundary had changed in the intervening period, which included the exceptionally wet winter of 2022-2023. The field data collection consisted of observations of wetland and upland vegetation, soil characteristics, and evidence of hydrology in relation to topography. The delineation used the “Routine Determination Method” as described in the 1987 USACE of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual9
, in conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 3 Department of the Army, San Francisco District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (revised April 2016). Information Requested for Verification of Corps Jurisdictions. https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/2%20-%20Info%20Req.pdf. 4 California Water Boards. 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. State Water Resources Control Board. Adopted April 2, 2019; Revised April 6, 2021. Available online at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pdf 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html 6
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2017. California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI), version 0.3. Accessed Sept 11, 2020. https://www.sfei.org/data/california-aquatic-resource-inventory-cari-version-03-gisdata#sthash.iognRp02.dpbs. 7 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. Custom Soil Resource Report for, San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California: 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica. Natural Resource Conservation Service; Web Soil Survey. Report printed July 28. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ (see Attachments) 8 Terraphase Engineering, Inc. 2016. Wet Weather Equalization Basin Project, Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Prepared for City of Pacifica. https://www.cityofpacifica.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=11510 9 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. January. 100 pp. Available online at http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/organizations/cespk-co/regulatory/pdf/delineation_manual.pdf
1.b
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 3
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coasts Region (Version 2.0)10, hereafter called the “WVMC Supplement.” Aquatic resources were classified using commonly accepted habitat types. Wetland plant indicator status is referenced to the 2020 WVMC Regional Wetland Plant list11.
In the northern part of the project parcels, vegetation, soil and hydrology were documented at nine locations on three transects across the wetland-upland boundary. Sample points were mapped in the field using a Trimble Geo XT 6000, with differential correction. Based on these data, a wetland boundary (subject to verification by the USACE) was mapped on an aerial photograph. This preliminary delineation includes wetlands that meet the federal three-parameter definition and other waters of the United States.
Three positive wetland parameters must normally be present for an area to be considered a wetland:
1) dominance of wetland vegetation, 2) presence of hydric soils, and 3) presence of wetland hydrology.
The extent of wetlands near the southern boundary of the City and Murphy parcels was re-evaluated in March and April, 2022, in relation to the location of a proposed emergency overflow riser (i.e., drain inlet), and the City’s drainage easement located along the southern boundary of the project site. The location of the inlet was shown on the Murphy’s prior project Tentative Map application, Sheet TM-3 (dated 1/21/21). However, that location is within a wetland; installation of the riser within the wetland could trigger the need for regulatory permits from federal and state regulatory agencies.
The 2020 wetland delineation map and report12, completed prior to the original project submittal, focused on the location and extent of aquatic resources toward the northern portion of the study area, where the objective was to avoid impacts to aquatic resources resulting from the proposed residential development project. In the southern portion of the project, which is dominated by dense and often impenetrable willow scrub, the extent of wetlands was extrapolated based on the presence of willow wetlands elsewhere on the site, and on the neighboring City’s Community Center and Wet-Weather Equalization Basin parcel.
An alternative location for the riser was proposed by the applicant close to the southwest corner of the study area, and shown on revised plans submitted to the City (Sheet A1.14, dated 04/08/22). WBC delineated this area on March 31 and April 4, 2022, to more precisely determine the boundary between wetland and non-wetland areas. Data were recorded or three sample locations, SP-1, SP-2 and SP-3 and summarized in a letter to the City13.
Botanical taxonomy and nomenclature conform to The Jepson Manual14 (Baldwin et al. 2012), except for recent revisions posted on the Jepson Online Interchange. 10 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, Coast Region (Version 2.0); Final Report. ERDC/EL TR-08-28.
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. Available online at https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7646 11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. http://wetlandplants.usace.army.mil/ 12 Wood Biological Consulting. 2020. Ibid. 13 Wood Biological Consulting. 2022. 570 Crespi Drive Development Proposal, Clarification of Wetland Boundary in Southern Part of Project Site. Letter to Christian Murdock, City of Pacifica. April 8. 14 Baldwin, B.G, D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. Second edition. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 1568 pp. Jepson eFlora available online at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html
1.b
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 4
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
REGULATORY DEFINITIONS
Wetlands and other waters (e.g., rivers, streams, and natural ponds) are a subset of waters of the U.S. and receive protection under Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters of the U.S. and requires a permit if a project proposes placement of structures within navigable waters and/or alteration of waters of the U.S. The USEPA has the ultimate authority under the CWA and can veto the USACE’s issuance of a permit to fill jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Waters of the State are inclusive of waters of the U.S. under Section 401 of the federal CWA, but also are also regulated more broadly by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Under this law, the RWQCB protects water quality and the beneficial uses of both surface and ground water. Waters regulated under Porter-Cologne include isolated waters that are not regulated by the USACE. Discharges of fill (e.g., waste) to waters of the State must file a Report of Waste Discharge and receive either waste discharge requirements (WDRs) or a waiver to WDRs before beginning the discharge.
Many of the terms used throughout this report have specific meanings with respect to the delineation of Waters of the U.S. These terms are defined below:
Hydric Soil: A soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Hydric soils are often characterized by redoximorphic features (such as redox concentrations, formerly known as mottles), which form by the reduction, translocation, and/or oxidation of iron and manganese oxides. Hydric soils may lack hydric indicators for a number of reasons. In such cases the same standard used to determine wetland hydrology when indicators are lacking can be used (USDA NRCS 2010).
Hydrophytic Vegetation: Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. Emphasis is placed on the assemblage of plant species that exert a controlling influence on the character of the plant community, rather than on a single indicator species (i.e., there must be a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation present to satisfy this wetland parameter).
Other Waters: The term “other waters of the United States” includes water bodies, such as rivers and streams that may not meet the full criteria for wetlands designation but that do exhibit evidence of an OHWM and are navigable or hydrologically connected to a navigable water body. Under the latest regulatory guidance, all such waters must have a significant nexus to a navigable water body to be considered jurisdictional by the USACE.
Special Aquatic Sites: Special aquatic sites are geographic areas, large or small, possessing special ecological characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted ecological values. These areas are generally recognized as significantly influencing or positively contributing to the general overall environmental health or vitality of the entire ecosystem of a region. Special aquatic sites include sanctuaries, refuges, wetlands, vernal pools, coral reefs and mudflats among others.
1.b
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 5
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Study Area: For the purposes of this report, the study area, refers to the entire area surveyed or hereby evaluated, which is inclusive of the City parcel and the Murphy parcel, and a small area adjacent to the Community Center.
Traditionally Navigable Waters (TNW): TNWs are all navigable waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. TNWs also include all waters that are ‘navigable-in-fact,’ defined through case law to include those water bodies that are both navigable and have the capacity to be used for the purposes of commerce, whether or not they have ever been used for such a purpose.
Waters of the United States: The definition of "waters of the United States” (33 CFR § 328.3; 40 CFR § 120.2) is listed below15. Relevant sections to the study area are at (a)(4) “adjacent wetlands”, and (b)(8), swales with low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. (a) Waters of the United States means:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section. (b) The following are not “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section:
15 Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (33CFR Part 328) and Environmental Protection Agency (40CFR Part 120), 2023. Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States; Conforming. Fed. Reg. 88(173): 61964-61969. Sept 8, 2023.
1.b
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 6
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act; (2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; (3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
(4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing.
(6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; (7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
(8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow. (c) In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
(2) Adjacent means having a continuous surface connection. (3) High tide line means the line of intersection of the land with the water's surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such as those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.
1.b
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 7
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
(4) Ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. (5) Tidal waters means those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects.
Wetland Hydrology: This term encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. These include both riverine and non-riverine hydrology indicators, such as sediment deposits, drift lines, and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots in the upper 12 inches of the soil. In the Arid West, hydrologic indicators may be absent in any given year due to annual variability in precipitation and in times of drought. The Arid West Supplement (USACE 2008) cites a technical standard that can be used for disturbed or problematic sites that support wetland vegetation and soils but where wetland hydrology is not apparent. This standard calls for 14 or more consecutive days of flooding, ponding, or saturation.
Wetland Indicator Status: Refers to the probability that a plant will occur in a wetland or not. Indicator status categories are as follows:
x Obligate (OBL): almost always occurs in wetlands
x Facultative wetland (FACW): usually occurs in wetlands, sometimes may occur in uplands x Facultative (FAC): equally likely to occur in wetlands or uplands x Facultative upland (FACU): usually occurs in uplands but may occasionally occur in wetlands x Obligate upland (UPL): almost never occurs in wetlands x No indicator (NI): no indicator assigned due to lack of information
SETTING
The wetland delineation study area is located within the Santa Cruz Mountains subsection of the Central California Coast Section as described in the Ecological Subregions of California16 (USDA 1997). Vegetation in the study area is not representative of historic conditions, which likely consisted of coastal scrub, coastal dunes and coastal prairie. Currently, the northern portion of the study area supports several large Monterey cypress trees with an understory (groundcover) of predominantly non-native herbaceous vegetation. The southern portion of the study area is slightly lower in elevation and gradually becomes dominated by perennial wetland vegetation, such as willows, cattails and sedges.
The study area is situated within a residential and commercial neighborhood of Linda Mar, within the City of Pacifica (coordinates: 37.597992°, -122.499359°). The 1.85-acre study area ranges from approximately 15 ft elevation (relative to a City benchmark in Crespi Drive) at the northeastern end of the Murphy parcel, to about 9 ft at the southwestern end. The climate is cool and temperate, characteristic of the San Francisco Peninsula coastal region. The average annual high temperature in Pacifica is 64°F; the annual average 16 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. Ecological Subregions of California: sections and subsections descriptions. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. https://web.archive.org/web/20080304224853/http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/ecoregions/`
1.b
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 8
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
low temperature is 49°F). About 29.5 inches of precipitation falls annually, with most of the rainfall between October and April17; see also the WETS tables in the attachments.
VEGETATION
Vegetation within the study area consists of arroyo willow scrub, emergent marsh, non-native annual grassland, and disturbed and ornamental habitats. The following are descriptions of the vegetation types occurring within the wetland delineation study area. The composition and extent of the vegetation types was re-evaluated on April 5, 2023, to assess whether substantial changes occurred that could be attributed to the wetter-than-average winter of 2022-2023. Table 1 is a list of all plants observed in the study area, updated as of April, 2023.
Arroyo Willow Scrub
Willow scrub, dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), covers most of the southern portion of the study area on both parcels (Figure 3). It also occurs in smaller stands along the western and eastern parcel boundaries. The willows form a dense and impenetrable thicket with few associated plant species. The willow scrub is almost entirely within the delineated wetland boundary and is represented by wetland delineation sample point 3B (see wetland delineation data forms in the attachments); the exception is at the northern extent, where soils and hydrology near the edge of the willows failed to meet wetland criteria (sample points 3C). Additionally, at the far southern end of the parcels, the topography rises slightly because of fill placed for the backyards of homes on Anza Drive. Although willow canopy extends to the parcel boundary, the willows are rooted in the lower part of the topographic depression, away from the fence line. In the southwestern corner, the topography rises more abruptly toward the berm that separates the project parcels from the Community center parking lot and rain garden. Non-native ngaio tree (Myoporum laetum), and upland species, replaces willow where the ground surface level is higher.
During the re-evaluation of the wetland boundaries in April, 2023, we confirmed that the extent and composition of arroyo willow scrub was unchanged from the previous delineation maps.
Emergent Marsh
Emergent marsh occupies a shallow topographic depression in the middle part of the study area (Figure 3), corresponding with the area with 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 latifolia), Pacific silverweed (Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica), and dotted smartweed (Persicaria punctata), among others. All of the emergent marsh is within the delineated wetland boundary (sample point 2A).
During the re-evaluation of the wetland boundaries in April, 2023, we confirmed that the extent and composition of emergent marsh was unchanged from the original 2020 delineation. Although water level in the southern part of the parcels was higher in the immediate aftermath of significant rain events in storms in the winter of 2022-2023, it did not persist long enough to result in establishment of emergent wetland plants in the transitional area that is mapped as seasonal wetland.
Seasonal Wetland
Seasonal wetland occupies a narrow band that is transitional between the upland and emergent marsh and arroyo willow scrub (Figure 3). The vegetation includes species that occupy the margins of the 17 https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/pacifica/california/united-states/usca0822
1.b
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 9
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
emergent marsh, but also some of the non-native annual grassland species as well. Sample point 1A is located near the boundary between seasonal wetland and non-native grassland.
During the re-evaluation of the wetland boundaries in April, 2023, the extent and composition of seasonal wetland was unchanged from the original 2020 delineation. Although water level in the southern part of the parcels was higher in the immediate aftermath of significant rain events in storms in the winter of 2022-2023, it did not persist long enough to convert this area to emergent marsh through establishment of obligate wetland plants.
Non-native Annual Grassland
Non-native grassland vegetation is present on the majority of the northern part of the study area, including the former residence site (Figure 3). Dominant plant species are annual grasses, such as bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus), slender oats (Avena barbata), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), and Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), with various non-native broad-leaf herbaceous species. Sample points 1B, 1C, 2B, and 2C are representative of this vegetation type. Non-native annual grassland plant species also occur within the area mapped as seasonal wetland within the delineated wetland boundary, where they appear to be expanding down the topographic gradient in response to drier soil conditions following groundwater pumping during construction of the City’s Wet Weather Equalization Basin.
During the re-evaluation of the wetland boundaries in April, 2023, the extent and composition of nonnative annual grassland was consistent with the original 2020 delineation.
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 type of habitat 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 study area, a parking area adjacent to Crespi Drive that is used by beach visitors, and a gravel staging area used during construction of the Wet Weather Equalization Basin are disturbed habitat (Figure 3).
Ornamental vegetation consists of maintained and unmaintained landscaping using native and non-native plants. Within the study area, large Monterey cypress trees are remnants of landscaping associated with the former residence on the Murphy parcel. An additional area of ornamental vegetation located in front of the Community Center is included within the current study area. None of the ornamental vegetation is within the delineated wetland boundary (sample point 3D).
1.b
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 10
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Table 1. Plant Species in Study Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS
Agrostis pallens Diego bent grass UPL
Atriplex prostrata fat hen FAC
Avena barbata* slender oats NL
Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea coyote brush NL
Bromus diandrus* ripgut brome NL
Bromus hordeaceus* soft brome FACU
Carduus pycnocephala* Italian thistle NL
Carpobrotus edulis* ice plant NL
Cirsium vulgare* bull thistle FACU
Cortaderia jubata* jubata grass FACU
Geranium dissectum* cutleaf geranium NL
Eucalyptus globulus* Tasmanian blue gum NL
Festuca perennis* Italian ryegrass FAC
Fumaria capreolata* white ramping fumitory NL
Hedera helix* English ivy FACU
Hesperocyparis macrocarpa** Monterey cypress NL
Holcus lanatus* velvet grass FAC
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* hare barley FAC
Lythrum hyssopifolia* hyssop loosestrife OBL
Juncus balticus Baltic rush FACW
Juncus effusus common rush FACW
Malva nicaeensis* bull mallow NL
Medicago polymorpha* bur clover FACU
Melilotus albus* white sweetclover NL
Myoporum laetum* ngaio tree UPL
Persicaria punctata dotted smartweed OBL
Potentilla anserina ssp. pacifica Pacific silverweed OBL Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum* Jersey cudweed FACW
Rubus ursinus California blackberry FACU
Rumex crispus* curly dock FAC
Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow FACW
Solanum douglasii Douglas’ nightshade FAC
Sonchus oleraceus* sow thistle UPL
Symphyotrichum chilense Pacific aster FAC
1.b
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 11
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
SOILS
Soils in the study area are mapped as Urban land or Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes18. While this is an accurate description of the adjacent parcels that already have been developed, a more accurate description of the soil on the undeveloped study area is the Candlestick-Barnabe complex, which is mapped in the comparable undeveloped parcel west of the skate park, and may have been the native soil type prior to widespread development of the Linda Mar neighborhood. The Barnabe soil series describes shallow well-drained soils formed from sandstone and shale19, while the Candlestick soil series is moderately steep, well-drained soils20 (i.e., on the surrounding hillsides). Neither soil series is considered hydric (though this does not preclude hydric soils from forming where these series area mapped).
Soil samples examined to determine the northern wetland boundary were typically sandy to sandy loam, with some clay, to depths of greater than 18 inches. Several samples (1A, 1C, 2A, 2B, 3B, 3C; see wetland delineation data forms in the attachments) exhibited redoximorphic features in the form of concentrations of oxidized iron minerals indicating the soils have been (but are not necessarily currently) subject to saturation by a seasonally high water table. These samples met the “Sandy Redox (S5) hydric soil indicator21.
Soils examined near the southern boundary of the City parcel, as described in detail below, and on the wetland data forms. Sample points SP-1 and SP-2 are representative of past alterations (i.e., filling or grading) that have raised the land surface
and SP-3) are different than in the north, as described below:
Sample Point SP-1 is at the location of the proposed emergency riser within the City’s existing drainage easement, next to the wooden backyard fence and close to an existing underground storm drain that carries stormwater and urban nuisance drainage from residential neighborhoods west toward the Anza Pump Station on Pacifica State Beach). The sample location is in a small depression that will facilitate drainage when water accumulates on the southern part of the City and Murphy parcels. The soil in this location is a clay loam consisting of a dark surface horizon (0-6 inches; 10YR2/1) lacking redoximorphic features. The lower horizon consists of pale yellow coarse gravelly clay (6-18+ inches; 10YR3/4 and
2.5Y3/3), with angular gravel that suggests its origin is either fill or overburden placed when the neighboring yards were extended into the drainage easement. The soil does not exhibit indicators of prolonged inundation or saturation, and is presumed not to be hydric (i.e., not a wetland soil).
To the east of SP-1, a slight rise of 1 to 2 feet separates the proposed riser location from the area where wetland hydrology is apparent as prolonged inundation and soil saturation supporting the willow-dominated portion of the study area. Sample Point SP-2 is located on the slight topographic rise. The ground 18 USDA. 2014. Ibid. (soil report, see Attachment). 19 USDA. 2003. Barnabe Series. Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/B/BARNABE.html 20 USDA. 2003. Candlestick Series. Official Soil Series Descriptions and Series Classification. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CANDLESTICK.html 21 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M Vasilas, G.W. Hurt and C.V. Noble, eds. In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. Available online at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046970.pdf
1.b
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 12
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
surface is relatively bare, with yard waste debris. Soil at SP-2 is also likely fill material, with a pale yellow gravelly clay surface horizon (0-9 inches; 10YR5/6) with inclusions of darker organic-enriched material (10YR3/2). Below this is a transitional stratum of coarse gravelly clay (9-15 inches; 2.5YR3/2). Below 15 inches, the soil transitions to sandy clay, possibly the cut and fill orthents that are mapped in the Soil Survey report. The color is pale yellow (2.5Y3/2) with up to 2% redox concentrations (7.5YR5/8) indicating periodic endosaturation from seasonal high groundwater. Although the deeper horizon indicates influence from nearby areas of prolonged saturation, the overall profile at this sample point does not conform to the hydric soil criteria.
The topography at Sample Point SP-2, adjacent to the wooden backyard fence line, is slightly higher in elevation than the area of prolonged inundation and soil saturation supporting the willow-dominated portion of the study area to the north. The sample point likely experiences periods of inundation or saturation following significant storm events, but it is not a persistent condition.
None of the three criteria (vegetation, soil or hydrology) are met, therefore, Sample Point SP-2 is not a wetland.
Sample Point SP-3 is located in the middle of the arroyo willow thicket, approximately 20 feet north of the wood fence. Vegetation, soil and hydrology conditions differ markedly from SP-1 and SP-2. Willow trees and shrubs at this location support a dense canopy, and meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion.
California blackberry also is present, but no other plants species are in the understory; the ground covered with accumulated branches and decomposing plant debris.
The soil is native (not fill), and exhibits hydric characteristics: from 0-6 inches, it is black organic enriched silty clay (10YR2/1); from 6-15+ inches, it is saturated gravelly clay (2.5Y3/2 and 2.5Y4/2), with 5% dark inclusions (10YR/2/1) of illuviated clay and/organic matter, and distinct redox concentrations of 2.5Y3/6.
This soil meets the hydric soil definition of “Redox Dark Surface”22 at sample point SP-3.
All three wetland criteria are met at SP-3, therefore SP-3 is a wetland.
HYDROLOGY
The study area is not located on a stream or near other surface waters. No wetlands or other surface waters are shown in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as occurring on the City or Murphy parcels.
The California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) shows a stream channel crossing the parcel, classified as “Fluvial Unnatural”. While no such channel is located on the parcel, the mapped feature does correspond to an existing drainage easement at the southwestern border of the parcel, which could carry overflow from the City and Murphy parcels toward the west-northwest to a buried drainage culvert with drain inlets, and ultimately pumped to the Pacific Ocean at the Anza Pump Station. However, there is no evidence that water from the project parcels moves via this hypothetical drainage pathway. These maps are often imprecise due to the mapping scale and scope, which may be an indication of changes in land use and drainage, and stormwater management. The two parcels are nearly enclosed by surrounding development, from which it has received stormwater runoff (i.e., from the roof of the Crespi Center to the east (580 Crespi Drive), and possibly from the Community Center and parking lot to the west. 22 U.S. Department of Agric., Nat. Res. Consv. Serv. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils.in the United States. Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
1.b
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 13
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Historic aerial photographs from as early as 1946 (predating development of the Pedro Valley and Linda Mar, show that the parcels are not in the path of drainage from either the Linda Mar neighborhood in general, or the remnant stream segments that are located in the hills to the north east, across Crespi Drive. Similar hydrological conditions appear in 1956 (see Figure 4); although residential development was well underway, parcels adjacent to and near the study area are still relatively vacant, and the study area itself is occupied by one or more residences and outbuildings. By 1980, however, following construction of the original parking lot where the City’s Wet Weather Equalization Basin and skate park are now located, there is some evidence of willows or other wetland vegetation beginning to develop at the lowest part of the southwestern end of the parcels (the southwestern end), possibly in response to restriction of runoff imposed by the parking lot (Figure 5).
During 2017 and 2018, construction of the City’s Wet Weather Equalization Basin required groundwater pumping. It is likely that the local water table, including the adjacent City and Murphy parcels, was drawn down to some degree. Soils in the region have a high proportion of sand, which is not effective at retaining water when groundwater is being removed nearby.
Although groundwater extraction is not ongoing as part of operation of the basin, there is a drainage system that removes surface runoff and, presumably, shallow groundwater. This system could continue to remove shallow groundwater from the upper soil horizon within the study area. Observers have remarked that the shallow pond in the study area did not retain water during the winter of 2019-2020, preceding the 2020 delineation field work. At that time, no sample point locations exhibited surface or shallow groundwater, although there was evidence in several samples (redoximorphic features in the form of iron mineral concentrations and reduced matrices) that the soils had developed under conditions that likely included seasonally high groundwater to within 12 inches of the soil surface. However, other evidence (lack of observed water table, abundance of worm burrows, and elevation above the presumed high water line of the former pond), suggest that the redoximorphic evidence is relictual, i.e., indicative of past hydrologic conditions, not current conditions. The seasonal wetland zone that is transitional between the wetter emergent marsh and arroyo willow vegetation (Figure 2) may also be an expression of changes in shallow groundwater since the construction of the Equalization Basin. Two delineation sample points (1A and 3B; see Figure 3) lack indicators of wetland hydrology, but retain hydrophytic vegetation and soil indicators (i.e. redoximorphic features) that were considered the strongest wetland indicators in the 2014 delineation.
Compared to the 2014 delineated wetland boundary, the northern wetland boundary has shifted slightly toward the southwest, following the topographic contour. Following the exceptionally wet winter of 2022- 2023, ponding on the project parcels was temporarily more extensive and longer in duration than in previous years, requiring pumping from neighboring properties. In April 2023, the wetland sample points bracketing the northern wetland boundary were re-examined in the field but did not indicate any difference from the 2020 delineation.
In the southwestern part of the City parcel, closer examination of the wetland boundary in March and April, 2022, indicated wetland hydrology corresponding with arroyo willows and subtle topographic contours. Groundwater was observed at a depth of 15 inches. The ground slopes slightly to the north, where standing water was accumulated at the surface, providing a clear indication of the seasonally high water table that supports the willow-dominated wetland in the majority of the southern part of the study area.
The hydrology criterion was met at sample point SP-3. Near sample point SP-1, slight rise of 1 to 2 feet separates the proposed riser location from the area where wetland hydrology is evident as prolonged inundation and soil saturation supporting the willow-dominated portion of the study area. Sample points
1.b
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 14
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
SP-1 and SP-2, located on the higher ground, likely experience periods of inundation or saturation following significant storm events, but not as a persistent condition that meets the hydrology criterion.
WETLANDS
Table 2 summarizes the areas of wetlands and non-wetland (uplands) in the study area. All aquatic resources in the study area are wetlands; there are no open waters (i.e., other waters of the U.S.). All areas are preliminary and subject to verification by the USACE if proposed project activities would result in discharge of fill into aquatic resources determined to be jurisdictional. Areas of waters of the state within the study area are assumed to be equal to waters of the U.S.
The northern wetland boundary is inferred from the location of one sample point where all three wetland criteria were met (sample point 2A) and two sample points where direct evidence of wetland hydrology is lacking but could be inferred from soil indicators (1A and 3B; see Figure 3). The latter two points are considered to be non-wetland, but on the boundary. All three points are located at or below the 10-foot contour, as shown on a topographic survey of the Murphy parcel23. The willow vegetation type is bisected by the wetland boundary, resulting in a portion of arroyo willow scrub that meets the wetland criteria and a portion that does not. Seasonal wetland is mapped in the transitional zone. This is consistent with the interpretation that site hydrology has changed toward drier conditions since groundwater pumping during construction of the City’s Wet Weather Equalization Basin.
The southern wetland boundary was established between the one sample point where all three wetland criteria were met (SP-3) and two sample points where the criteria were not met (SP-1 and SP-2). Sample point SP-3 is located in the interior of the arroyo willow thicket and in the topographic depression where soils are inundated or saturated for a significant part of the growing season.
UPLANDS
Upland areas that do not meet the wetland criteria were confirmed by six sample points near the northern wetland boundary (1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3C and 3D) and at two points near the southern wetland boundary (SP-1 and SP-2). A combination of vegetation, soils or hydrology failed to meet the wetland criteria at these locations. Additionally, these points are located higher on the topographic gradient.
Table 2. Wetlands and Uplands in the Study Area
FEATURE TYPE (SAMPLE PT.) WETLAND UPLAND TOTAL
Arroyo willow scrub 0.460 ac (20,037 sf) 0.090 ac (3,920 sf) 0.550 ac (23,958 sf) Emergent marsh 0.240 ac (10,454 sf) 0.000 ac (0.0 sf) 0.240 ac (10,454 sf) Seasonal wetland 0.060 ac (2,614 sf) 0.000 ac (0.0 sf) 0.060 ac (2,614 sf) Non-native annual grassland 0.000 ac (0.0 sf) 0.400 ac (17,424 sf) 0.400 ac (17,424 sf) Disturbed and ornamental 0.000 ac (0.0 sf) 0.980 (42,689 sf) 0.980 (42,689 sf) Total 0.760 ac (33,105 sf) 1.470 ac (64,033 sf) 2.230 ac (97,138 sf) 23 B & H Surveying, Inc. 2014. Boundary and Topographic Survey, Lands of Murphy. APN 022-162-310.
1.b
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 15
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS
Recent changes to the definition of waters of the U.S. have resulted in changes in the interpretation of the federal jurisdictional status of the wetland on the City and Murphy parcels. In 2020, at the time of the first wetland delineation update, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army’s (USACE) Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) was in effect. The NWPR included adjacent wetlands, which could be separated from waters of the U.S. by an artificial structure so long as that structure allows for a direct hydrologic connection between the adjacent wetlands and waters of the U.S. The 2020 wetland delineation acknowledged that the wetland on the project parcels could be considered jurisdictional by virtue of its potential connection to the ocean by way of the drainage easement, stormwater sewer, and Anza Pump Station.
In January, 2023, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule was repealed and replaced with a new revised rule. In August, 2023, and as a result of the Supreme Court of the United States decision on Sackett v.
EPA24, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced a final rule revising the definition of “waters of the United States” (see Regulatory Definitions, above), which went into effect on September 8, 2023. According to this rule, adjacent wetlands must be contiguous with navigable waters, i.e., with a continuous25 surface water connection. The wetland on the City and Murphy properties does not exhibit a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters (the Pacific Ocean, in this case), because it is interrupted by (a) drainage swale that exhibited no flow during the wet winter of 2022-2023; (b) a subsurface storm drain system that would capture any flow, should it occur; and (c) a system of flood control pumps that would be required to discharge flow to the ocean.
In the southwestern corner of the study area, surface water (i.e., in excess of what percolates on site or is pumped from neighboring properties) could enter the shallow drainage swale that flows west-northwest toward Highway 1, parallel with the backyard fences of houses on Anza Drive. This swale follows the route of a buried 24-inch storm drain culvert. At least two drain inlets to the culvert are located at ground surface level within the undeveloped parcel between the skate park and Highway 1. The culvert crosses Highway 1 under the north entrance to the parking lot for Pacifica State Beach, where it connects to the Anza Pump Station, which discharges directly to the Pacific Ocean. However, following the exceptionally wet winter of 2022-2023, there was no evidence of surface water flow exiting the City and Murphy parcels by way of the drainage easement except by way of the underground storm sewer. Although higher water levels did occur following the large rain events, necessitating pumping from neighboring properties, it does not appear that the water level overtopped the low berm in the southwest corner of the City parcel.
The wetland on the City and Murphy parcels is never inundated by water from the Pacific Ocean by way of the culvert and swale, nor from any tributary that enters the site (there are none). Therefore, the wetlands in the study area, although they exhibit field indicators consistent with jurisdictional wetlands, do not appear to meet the current regulatory definition of federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Because the proposed project does not propose any actions resulting in a discharge of fill into the wetlands, development of the proposed project does not require a Section 404 permit under the USACE regulatory program.
Most of the wetland (excluding a portion of the arroyo willow scrub that failed to meet all three wetland criteria) would still be considered waters of the state subject to regulatory review by the San Francisco 24 8 F.4th 1075 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. granted Jan. 24. 2022. 25 As used here, “continuous” means spatially connected or physically uninterrupted, not continuously inundated or flowing.
1.b
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 16
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board but only if actions were proposed that resulted in wetland fill or degradation of water quality. Waters of the state are more broadly defined according to recently published guidance26.
EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Waters of the U.S.
Because of the absence of a continuous surface hydrological connection to navigable waters, the wetlands in the study area do not appear to meet the current regulatory definition of federal jurisdictional waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Additionally, because the proposed project does not propose any actions resulting in a discharge of fill into jurisdictional wetlands or other waters, development of the proposed project does not require a Section 404 permit under the USACE regulatory program.
Waters of the State
Waters of the State include waters of the U.S., but may also include areas that do not meet the criteria for federal jurisdictional status. The State wetland definition is:
“An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The State wetland definition relies on the federal delineation method to identify state wetlands. On the City and Murphy parcels, the central area of arroyo willow scrub, freshwater emergent marsh and transitional seasonal wetland have been shown to meet this definition (see cross-hatched portions of Figure 3), while the areas mapped as arroyo willow scrub (non-JD) do not satisfy criteria (1) or (2).
The proposed project would remove or prune an estimated 784 sf of arroyo willow scrub to meet parking and walkway requirements at the southern edge of Building B. This portion of arroyo willow scrub does not meet all three wetland criteria (i.e., soil and hydrology indicators are lacking), therefore is not included in the wetland total. The proposed project also would result in planting of 1,170 sf of willow scrub (see Sheet A1.13 of design submittal). This project element would avoid fill discharge into waters of the state and would not result in substantial impacts to beneficial uses as defined in the Basin Plan27. However, if required, the project would comply with applicable water quality regulations, such as acquiring Waste Discharge Requirements through the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board.
Riparian Habitat
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulates alteration of streams and lakes beds through its Stream and Lakebed Alteration authorization program (California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 etseq.). Although the small area of area of arroyo willow scrub that would be removed is not associated with a stream or lakebed setting, the CDFW may consider that this area meets its interpretation of riparian vegetation, and require notification, review, and authorization under SAA. If so required, the project 26 California Water Boards. 2021. Ibid.
27 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 2011. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). San Francisco Bay Region. Available online at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html
1.b
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 17
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
would obtain and comply with Stream and Lakebed Alteration Agreement conditions. As described above the proposed project includes replacement of the willows that would be removed.
1.b
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 18
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 – Study Area Location
Figure 2 – Study Area
Figure 3 – Jurisdictional Map
Figure 4 – Topographic Survey
Figure 5 – Aerial photograph, 1956
Figure 6 – Aerial photograph, 1980
Wetland Delineation Data Forms
Representative Photographs
Soils Report
WETS Tables
National Wetland Inventory Map
California Aquatic Resource Inventory Map
1.b
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 19
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Figure 1. Study Area Location
Study Areal Location
Point S•n P•dro
Dt111lls Slidt1
© 202CJ Goc,glo
:t~ C.~IJMfJ :JHAL, Cf\ C;FC
~r:ags © 2.020 T0rraM~;trJcg
T3 S
1.b
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 20
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Figure 2. Study Area
1.b
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 21
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Figure 3. Wetland Map
.
J,
\
\
----\
_} I •-•
-u--..
..... - - ~-'--.. 1=
~-..,-5c,.., - --J ;:
SP-s..i,i.Pk,,_, .,,...._~-p.J -•
"<.-';
r~":"'"' -- :~r..ut,IWl'.HGl..:t t6581f
~ - ~~------------:'.-
(,
/'-'lltl:l'-""'0DIUN:AlK7'1
LU. (JIJ!hSO, Wl;n,u,QJ
------ .l()._SP-3
AWS-2
...---
\ \
Q![
, .. ,,,,,.
= ====,
\ l WflV.~
SW-1 I ~~-
/ n1A 18 /' 0 1C
.----1--~- 0
028 0 2C
540 & 570 CRESPI DRIVE
PAC:KI,, CA ll;O RHIA 94QU.
= =
-;::.
~1!)
.,,,.. ..
0 stref'LAH
SHn nnE
FIGUREJa
WETLAN D MA P
' I I I
~00-l'
I
·1 ~
=·
','\ ',1
;,\ ,\
'\'' I '
I II
Ii I
', '1,1,1'~ -
lj 1
1 '\ !
'1 ' I
,,
'1\ I
11\ I I I
',1 I
1,11 I
111,\ 1 1[ 1 '/,\ 1\ :
I
,, ,,
'\ I 1, '1 ,,
•l l 11 l
\I r ,\:,
1, 1,
1\ '
11 11
'\ I I :·
lq 111
'\ :1
: 11,
< ./ 11 ', '
,,. ,; ti
11 i
w
ED
ARCHllfCIS
1.b
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 22
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Figure 4. Topographic Map
\
'
/ ------....... ____ ______ _
( F \ ·,
.. \ \ '
', \
\ '
', \\ \ h ' \ \'\
' ' \ \
\ \ \ ' ' I ' \
\ \
' ' ' '
\ \111:
:~ ,::: l
ii'
·-._._ l '-_--. - 0 :I 111- - - ~~ - c "- .., I
• -- ~-7 I (. 1r > d O '
,, • • ___; I i.
:_--- ;- t
: .: , 'I i o I ii - ---=:7 i [ • • I
O O ~ I I
L: - ~- ,I :1 ..... _ - - _, H
.. ! -.--._ __ I : I
~--- -7 i /-
' ' ! f----- -7 I i
: : i1, ! L ___ __ I i' i
i-~--7 i i
! ___ ( , ~~ ~:
1.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 23
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Figure 5. Aerial photograph (1956)
No evidence of wetland vegetation within the study area, most of which is in active use. No surrounding development has occurred yet.
City and Murphy parcels
Linda Mar
1.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis 24
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Figure 6. Aerial photograph (1980) Drive
Dark vegetation within the study area suggests wetlands forming following construction of parking lot, which may have limited lateral movement of shallow groundwater.
Study Area
Parking lot
Community Center
Linda Mar
City and Murphy parcels Highway 1
Crespi Drive
1.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Wetland Delineation Data Forms
1.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecVSite: 5?t() C\..flS/1; Dr City/County: flu, 1. co... l':;8- 11 /1.t,kt, Sampling Date: -:f /19 /zo ApplicanVOwner: (30.., l J,i, f.. 5 rn,,.,(tr lnr, State: CA Sampling Point: 1-A lnvestigator(s): ( /2e>q~ r J / vs/a O d &; (',. Section, Township, Range: _ ___ __________ __ _ /
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): I\ )ON ·Slope(%): ___t!l__ Subregion (LRR): _ _.L._L_ _ ____ _____ Lat: ~t O '.> S' 1 C: Z.. 7$11 Long':_" (1.:z... c, 2 ~ 1 St, 3/ 1
' Datum: _ __ _
Soil Map Unit Name: Co.hl((QsAck- &;,,,-,,.. 6-e NWI classification: ......:.Ab..= 1 :.if\O.».<<'--- ---
Are climatic/ hydrologic cond,s on the site typical for this time of year? Yes .2S,__ No _ _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _f/_, Soil __ , or Hydrology 1-_ significantly disturbed? Are •Normal Circumstances• present? Yes __ No ~ Are Vegetation _/JJ__, Soil __t!__, or Hydrology N naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Hydric Soil Present? Yes
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
No
No
No )(
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
/tty /NI 0/1 ou., a /
Yes ___ No .½_
Remarks: 1/1/ cr/'/-cr1°'- /b.Lfkt.T. So..""'[w loCc,..kd r-oo.... /OC/V4!'Sf 5atJ..<JOr-a../ or<:!--~ t<J<tl ~ c-cc"r- "/cl' -lo r:;..(11) VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: \ % Cover SQecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (8)
4. = Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
-=,,c;- Zf'vl_e' ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/8)
SaQling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
1. 5al ,y.. /o..5 io lep1".s 20 y EIKW Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total% Cover of: MultiQI~ b~:
2. OBL species 13 x 1 = 1,3. 3. FACW species 15 x2= <b
4. FAC species 25 x3= 9-S
5. /0 -10 20 FACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2-M ,.ef )
= Total Cover
UPL species I x5= 5"
1., r ,,:1,,.r'>Cl/4C. l::a.1-h' cus. 2,;- 'I fi1()1-I Column Totals: li~ (A) 223 (8)
2. "7o!enhit~ Cl.VI raLi"o...,.., LO Iv Q/!,L- Prevalence Index = 8/A = -z.~r
3. Hole.us. /0.,-10-.fu..5 'L'S y. Pit',, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. (')f'~S.iu.M 1LuJaa.r~ {s' 1'f Ed.CU _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. Ri-rsico.t',()... n~,,,c-ki-./o- ~ /V a6L. X. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% ,n I , . _.L_ ·- .. ,, A'! ,,., JAi ,_ __ ,i ,6._ 3 - Prevalence Index is S3.01 0 . '~ '..,; .,..,. - , . I~..,,, -
7. G-e.ro,,, r'u. ,,.,,, d isse.c+v.. 1\.11 l Al NL.. _ 4. Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 7l. = Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ZfVl{Jf. l
:.:: 1. t.2Y..h.ruJ. r.t:r<;.inuS g_ y £ACU Hydrophytic
2. ·Vegetation )< 2. Present? Yes No
Ct, = Total Cover --
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:.54,"1,ffW f o,'".,.. lo co..-k c( /l.Jl/),r e.dJ e of 1j, c.,uz a 5 ,.~ j N.fl"S-e, l-v..(Lf'/o,,,, d w. ~e fo..~ ..
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point'
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) _?{g__ Color (moist) _?{g__ ~ Loc2 Texture Remarks o-z....
z, /I ,-.t/ft -- NIA --------- ~D~ma. ~~nl~c'----'--'" lc~t/4~~~r __ z.SY 3/3 7S _ ___ ______ .,<;cu,dCI _ -:r- _-_____ _ fo 'I ~ 3/z_ Z ~ r,of red~ Cl~CJC>J'v1-'---------
//-1 ~-+- z,514/ -4 ID_ ZS{ 1/1 l?Y 'RM _M_ .5(J,. o/ c \..!CC /OA.t =r------- ------__ /o'Lf.. S/8 ±:.._ _Q__ _f!1_ __ _ o _____ _
---- ---------- - --------------- ---- -------------
--------- ------- --- ------ ----- -------------
------- -- -------------- -- ----- -------------
'Tvoe: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linino, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all Lf.,Rs, unless otherwise noted.) _ Histosol (A1) & Sandy Redox (SS)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: ______ ______ _
Depth (inches): ______ _ _ _ _
Remarks: /2.J. d 0c fr,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
__ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B1 1)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes )(_ No __
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
_ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ FAC-Neutral Test (DS)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR·A)
l{, Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
includes ca illar frin e
Yes __ No _L Depth (inches): ____ _
Yes __ No _A_ Depth (inches): ____ _
Yes __ No .L Depth (inches): _ ___ _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
~
Remarks:...e.,c.,-lOleM ce of .$.0.0.AO;l\()I.,_( /1...jt.... (/.)0..)JYt f~{p./ /;;..;' r~d 1:...t_( 0c~d/ud g:,r"I. s(/VJ~cr +t.1.J o...u? a- , s
fA....t lo (A) C<1~ j f, . "'~ €&1
J) 0\..,4-) ("\. -
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: n o I ; r. City/County: fbL, I Y.,c(),. &n f}1 tl/e () Sampling Date: ? It r I '2tJ I .,., A ' I
Applicant/Owner: C, State: - vt1 ~~- Sampling Point: J B,, lnvestigator(s): IQ (CQta;,../ Section, Township, Range: ________________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ___________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): /\)ol".L Slope{%):~ Subregion (LRR): A Lat: n ° 35, SZ, <f 1 '• Long: - , z.z. 0 (., 9 , 5'1-, O<J I/ Datum:---- Soil Map Unit Name: CA-w::l{e..,<;-4ck..-&r~~ llOk t'l'I $0,Js) NWI classification: ~AA~~AIL~~---- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __c;,_ No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation ___N_. Soil --1!1__, or Hydrology~ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances· present? Yes _ _ No ~ Are Vegetation .!::!._, Soil _!::I.._, or Hydrology.!'::!..__ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _ ;(_ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No z<' Is the Sampled Area
--- __L Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No.E:__ within a Wetland? Yes No --- --- Remarks:/1,//&u; ho-~ ~ /\ C,v..Q./1~ I' A.J2fC#l EG. et>:, , n • ..5,0;1,t(,_ L.-- /cu,,,, (/4. ~I"' c»- "" I a,/ .9\., £/'t:;t~ .. 1.. (a /q.AJ 9 _ ..
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ____ _
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. ----------------------------
2. --------------------- -----
3. ----------------- ---------
4, --------------------------
___ = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ____ _
1. --------------------------
2. --------------------------
3. --------------------------
4. - -------------------------
5. --------------------------
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2 ~ CJ'
1. £.12.sf-r.,.,c o... ~i:S
2. /b./R,11h/6. o..11 s:1 !'in~
3. ' Tl)-
___ = Total Cover
,(_I NL -
6. - ---------------- ---------
7. --------------------- -----
8. --------------------------
9. ------------------ --------
10 _________________ - -----------
11. -------------------~- -------- 14
W99,f1Y Vine Stratum (Plot size: ?, M (/J)
1.~bCA,/) y rs ,'r.tt~ ~L _ __ y_ FACU
= Total Cover
2. ------- ----------- ~- --------
_ ._! __ = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum SS
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: I
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: z..
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: S-0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total% Cover of: MultiQIY by:
OBL species ~ X 1 = 8
FACW species 0 x2 = 0
FAC species 3S- x3= ,osFACU species I x4 = 1
UPL species I x5= '0
Column Totals: ,15" (A) /22
Prevalence Index = B/A = ,z ,~,
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. 3 - Prevalence Index is ~3.01
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
(B)
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 -Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' {Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes -6,__ No __
Remarks: /\/0//1 _ o/ 0 ,11,/ i" 0<. ~ T
(#e. fj-e r Co ,,,o', h'o,0
o..c O I lo.. t-:"'""
fut rl l'C pl,<-, .µ ) ;0c e- < . /' e ,i,,. 11 a II f of' pre. vi eiv 0 # ,co r (_ (/W p\,,( v.-t/ f j c( UA / I\P, C 0,0 ~Ir . 0 f' Go. .,s ,'-. I' . !JJJ q -w .-f, et elf, ,v 111~.j1 r.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point: _ (_.B __ _
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) ___%___ Color (moist) ___%___ ~ Loe' Texture Remarks 0 -'l.... /J//t _ _ N/A __ __ _ _ ___ tA"f}l'/c, !,4e r z- ? IOY R.. 2/1 90 _:_ ______ ..5°A4<.. d =Q.«,c..:;,:...-.......: /o~o.. c..:...."4.t _,_ 1 _ ___ _
/0'/A., '3/3 _jQ__ 11of red of. ..so, r8t• ;ficlv~len.; 9- af+ 2._s, -11 -z- ~ :r-,s1 s;la s- c M .~ CV> ro.N ,,,., 7 ~ Rv.k r-M 5 -------------- --
------- ---- --- --
------- ---------
------- --------- 1
Type: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore lininn, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) _ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3} _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: _ ___________ _
Depth (inches): ______ _ __ _
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3 1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ___ No _J{_
Remarks: j&dc,,< ,'QO d..JJlt{>-Cor- S6j or F=!-, /<..o.,l,'c.r o.f' 170...s- G-w,· (O.,,.,;vL/' hort''C,..o/1 d r,e.l' ~ kLor..1..) w/0-l>e,,.r1o/. Jl.~-!-lt.&,\.lorl\A s, {$0 s~o/lo,..,f .$:>--,-/--c-.-..~Ct:A ,:,,._f bf f(,.._ I &Lt ll/4oS f-,
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima[Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aQQllt'.} Seconda!Y Indicators 12 or more reguired} _ Surface Water (A 1} _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9} _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes __ No -15_ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes __ No ;( Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes _ _ No X Depth (inches): Wet No ~ land Hydrology Present? Yes --- (includes capillary frincie) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: /ow-e I' -/ojJCJ ~,1&( I I\ Cu. a.,; / "J "'J 6<-Pt~~ o:z.o t I '"J -(av.Jcv'd /i Jd r rrt;; , c V't_J,.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) lnvestigator(s): (! Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrade, etc.): ____________ Local rel ief {concave, convex, none): .I\/~ Slope(%): --Z- A " le:--? . ,c:-t:;;>"' - " 0,r-/ Qt, Subregion (LRR): --=---'----- ~~~-~-- Lat: -:1,":/- JS :::; '-' ' v Q Long : / 2,2 2... I ,llq , ' Datum: ___ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Cb-Ile/ lesh'ck- (Jo.,b.e,{ss& f}QK ;/) sa,'ts) NWI classification /\/oA9- Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes L_ No _.:: (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation _E_, Soil _li__, or Hydrology M_ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances· present? Yes _ _ No __ Are Vegetation _N_, Soil~. or Hydrology ~ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
Hydric Soil Present? Yes .15___ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _____ _,
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1. ---------------------------
2. --------------------- ------
3. ------------------ ---- -----
4. --------------------- ------
___ = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ____ __,
1. --- --------------- ---------
2. ------------------ ---------
3. ------------------- --------
4. ---------------------- -----
5. ------- --------------------
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2,. M {:i! \
1. µb/CIA..() /QJIA'tt,AJ
2. l~.ea+u i.s:
___ = Total Cover
.3C2
{0
4. ---------- ------ -----------
5, ------------ - ------ ----- ---
6. -------- -------- --- - - - -----
7. - - ---------------------- ---
8. ------------ - ------ - - --- ---
9. --------- ------------ - - - ---
10. ---------------------- --------
11 . ___________ _______ -------- ----
40 = Total Cover
Woodv Vine Stratum (Plot size: ZM
1. /?o6cu u f'S,r,u_s s- ___.__ _:,4cu
2. ------------------- -------- .s: = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ,5S
Remarks: (VOA _ fu;dric )
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3
That
Percent
Are
o
OBL
f Dom
, F
in
ACW
ant Species
, or FAC: &r
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multir;!II' bl':
OBL species 0 X 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x2= 0
FAC species -10 x3= /2,Q
FACU species _') x4 = zo
UPL species 0 x5 = 0
Column Totals: 15 (A) l~O
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
;J._ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is :S:3.01
(A)
(8)
(A/8)
(8)
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Welland Non-Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No £
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point: IC,
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches)
0-t_
2-~
(p-!Z
Matrix Redox Features
---------- ------
------------- --- ---- -------------
---------------- ---- ------------- 1
T e: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linin , M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) _ Histosol (A 1) :/:.. Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A1 1) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: ____________ _
Depth (inches): _________ _
Remarks: C. K° A" ,'/,1 r,:s l"(M /IM fIndicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _K__ No
C/a few 1-,'c i. • &r 1~6',
OvJ Oc.Ptll.1- tA•'ldcvct(cy:,eo/ /Ot..,,..J
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primari Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a1:11:1lil Secondari Indicators (2 or more reguiredl _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust{B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Ory-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (02) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes __ No _x_ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes _ _ No .2S__ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes __ No L Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -- No _x__ (includes capillary fringe l
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: /l}o lrd,'c. o,,./-or .$
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecVSite: .£10 ~/ lJf'II.X City/County:/jc/ h C() / So..11 Mc:t"~o Sampling Date: 9-/ r'J,/etJ ApplicanVOwner: &,,, fA}c;;-(c_,5 OA,/)J.{'. !,,c, State: ~ Sampling Point: z A lnvestigator(s): C. i2ryf , 5 / tdootl ~io- Section, Township, Range:----------------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc./ & '> IA Local relief (concave, convex, none): c-c-1 CO..v-"- Slope (%}:~ Subregion(LRR): A Lat: !rl- 0l> 'f: ' 5t,91" Long: ( ZZ.0 2 9" 5'8'.!w" Datum: _ __ _ Soil Map Unit Name CfJ4'd (o fhcJ:_ - &rflO , e NWI classification: Afev,..JL_ Are climatic I hydr#ic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _}s,__ No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil ~ . or Hydrology 1_ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes __ No _L,,_ Are Vegetation N , Soil /V. or Hydrology ~ naturally problematic? {If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _,L No ---
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ___t__ No Is the Sampled Area --- Yes.,( __ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _K_ No within a Wetland? No --- --- Remarks: Lo~ r ttM--f(4ff- /' ".\._ ,.,-1 e', I "'j>el.,.,/ -11~h ~ k c( re-, /~o. clvJJ Jo re Ulv1 f- 6-w Pu tv1Dt'f\a '-" r Eo 80.,.,, YL . I .., VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
, J J
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ' % Cover SQecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 2.. 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (8}
4. Percent of Dominant Species = Total Cover {g(p That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: {A/B) SaQling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ' Prevalence Index worksheet:
1. Total% Cover of: MultiQI~ b~: 2. OBL species ~-s- X 1 = 5)
3. FACW species lo x2 = z.o
4. FAC species I x3 = 3
5. FACU / ') Ct,0 species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2.M (if' )
= Total Cover
UPL species 0 x5= 0
1. Pa-4> 11 f, 'f {Ov a 11'51' r l l. o___.. .L:fn y Ol>L Column Totals: BL (A) L3.f5 (B)
2. '7,~ /Eh' ~or!<>--
',~ ~1/ ~ Prevalence Index - BIA - (, 1-
3. ~ rr-:/l= 5 ~ 1-hc u ~ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. t / ~~hs ~7~ -!r_ f'AcV _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. PAC ¼_ 2 • Dominance Test is >50% ,V\/\0.X /" )., ,;Jc,...5
6. lS._ 3 . Prevalence Index is :.3.01
7. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9 - 5 . Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 8( = Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
(9 = Total Cover - -
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: v~ / ri /CICAU-1 f -H-.o... f (...A..A-V d fa fo" d a. lV-0... I ' ~ cfrs--fh1r f- + ('Y\tNI r/ Q_J (211/l Sfrjl...1 t; fty4-r e /Y.'(A •cf.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Note: observations of standing water greater than 14 days duration in 2022 and 2023.
SOIL Sampling Point: z..AProfile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches} Color /moist\ ~ Color {moist} _____%__ ~ Loc2 Texture 0 -18- z,SY 1/t ~ ? 'fy(lS/a 2- ~ _M__ Sal'd1.--=-- C'....:...: / ~=4+----- Remarks
- --- --------- ------ - - --------
---- ------ - -- -------- --------
---- --------- ------- --------- -----
------------- ---------- ------
- - ----------- -------- - - ------ -----
---- ---------- ----------------
---- ---------- ---------- ---- --
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) _ Histosol (A1) X.. Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (except MLRA 1) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loaf!ly Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: ____________ _
Depth (inches): _________ _
Remarks:
I~
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators {minimum of one required: check all that apply) _ Surface Water (At) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B)
_ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3
:
_ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes £ No __
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 4B)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82)
_ Drift Deposits (83)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84)
_ Iron Deposits (85)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Ct) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Ji._ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
.X Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
_ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
includes ca illa frin e
Yes __ No L Depth (inches): ____ _
Yes __ No .A_ Depth (inches): ____ _
Yes __ No _l_ Depth (inches): ____ _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _K__ No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) -
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: S JO WJUP ; !Jr City/County /6,Ct h'c0,.ffe11. /lh./€0 Sampling Date: 9-(19 f 2e, Applicant/Owner: fn-1 !.dor t ,; (1,.-\. ~-1-J I vie, I State: CA Sampling Point: 2.. /3 lnvestigator(s): C, /4J1qr/ , r / {,,Jona' l?r,c • Section, Township, Range: _______________ ....- Landform (hillslope, terrace, : tc.): ____ _______ Local relief (concave, convex, none): N() ;,..L Slope(%): I"(.
Subregion (LRR): ,4 Lat: s:/ "''3,) 1 S7-. (,, 2 ,, Long: r;:_z_o 2_ CJ , TT, 1 0 " Datum: ___ _ Soil Map Unit Name: &tX/ U1 , f,HcK. - /!Art :'-bt?, NWI classification: __ /' __ ' _~_..;._ __ _ Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes A_ No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation /J , Soil ___t{_, or Hydrology ~ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes __ No x__ Are Vegetation N , Soil ___1}_, or Hydrology _Af._ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
YesA_ No
Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No L_
Remarks: L-a..ck-".7 fv..;c/fb( °3/ , /1.1oN ~ Pl
-/-o µor-.cl t,,Jt:>...J-e r rtor .,lo CvJ
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: \ % Cover Sgecies? Status
1. 2.
3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sagling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: \
1,
2. 3.
4. 5.
2,MJ2f = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. A i r l {2/-€$ ?J- res r~ .s-
=;==
FfiC
f7o I '7'~ I • 2. _ ./.(?LJ_ _ {. (>.. a.11..s~r-,"a.... IZ- 08l3. d,.o le " • .s I a.1J o..:fu. $ Z-0 e,c. ,.., , - - ' .. ... - A ., -~ , , ~ T V ., ,-.~ :;!ttt}~IY~~Cl~7;'/~,11r IL
7,
-3
L N tJ ~
8. 9.
10. 11,
ZM<;? 4 / = Total Cover
WoOd'f. Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
~ 1. 7ZA, h ub IA. /'5 )nus FAW , s- 'I
2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Sf ,,,z;- = Total Cover Remarks ~ Mf l,J,._ f O;f\f o..f 0..f1p.P-l' -fof'':Jr<>f # c.
US Army Corps of Engineers
/ow po,~ f- '-f-lN)A. r t~m
c-c-11 .-tfru«:ov1. a-f £lY
.J
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2- (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: .3 (8)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Ce'? (A/8)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: MultiQIY. bY,:
OBL species IL X 1 = Cl-
(j
~r
FACW species x2=
FAC species Z'1 x 3 =
FACU species S" x 4 = "2.0
UPL species ~ x 5 = 0
Column Totals: (A) U'i. (8)
Prevalence Index = BIA = -z.5'8
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
K 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
)(_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present. unless disturbed or problematic,
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes _A_ No --
/ ,),.,f of tB kAh'II 0-{o6L).
Western Mountains. Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
,,h,
1.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point· .2. (3
Profile Description: {Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
{inches} Color (moist} ~ Color (moist) ~__TuruL_ Loc
2 Texture Remarks
0-1 NIA tv/A oro.11rC.;
t-2
~ 50 ? .5"tR--"1f<o_ Z- C M ~/~ /@.~ 48 °rof ~ila,( _ _ --- - ~ IA l WS-01$ 8'.--tY ~ '4 (a_ t.S y{j .!J.Q_ &M_ _M___ :$AP /fa/ r:edu<.Pi N<A{l'it< <n • r at
--- ---------
(Z.LhrflttJ)l'M5 fuf OAJ --- ---- -----
--- - -------- 8 1(
--- --------- 'Tvoe: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linino, M=Matrix.
Hydrlc Soil Indicators: {Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol {A1) i( Sandy Redox {S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2} _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12} _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4} _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks} _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface {A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7} wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer {if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes _½_ No ---
Remarks:/Vl~f',,'ro.-/ly 3/"'c j /1,{ J k l'Clic~f (/V el/<2. I' bR:fo r -e__ E<J ~f;/t1 <JW ,fv< ;z,,1~r(\.J.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima!Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired· check all that ai:112I~) Secondaty Indicators (2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9} (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation {A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10} _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13} _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1} _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3} _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust {84} _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits {B5} _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test {D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks {B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery {B7} _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8}
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes __ No 4- Depth (inches}:
Water Table Present? Yes __ No x: Depth (inches}:
Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NoX- --- /includes caoillarv frinae l Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: No 111d rco...~r> o-f ~ fl o"c~l~ s?o...llow G-w, Cl US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projea/Sitec Cr• Sf!; b ~ Ci'J/Cooa>,J4c /h'co./Sa.,, /i{o./(c, Sampliag Dab<' 7/} 9 ( '2JJ Applicant/Owner: wor-k-s Cb.-v1 ir, State: (' A Sampling Point: c..:
lnvestigator(s): Cr 't)(lqll r~ Wood Section, Township, Range: - ---------------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, ~ le.): ____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): /\._b ,11,12_ Subregion (LRR): f+ Lat: 39-0 55"''5"3, 0~ (( Long: f Z.Z-" 21 '£(,. 9'J " Datum: ___ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Ca.,,wi_(Q;-/-/cl. -&.r11~~ NWI classification: _ ___:_N,~0..._~Af2.....,. _ ____ ..::::'---- Slope (%): / c /o
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ---1s._ No _ _ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation 4 . Soil --1:}__, or Hydrology _Af_ significantly disturbed? Are ·Normal Circumstances· present? Yes )(._ No _ _ Are Vegetation _N __ . Soil ~ . or Hydrology~ naturally problematic? (If needed. explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_L_ No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nor
Is the Sampled Area --- No __x_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes - -- --- Remarks: /\JC I rd f(_ ~ fc c:;. • Uf' - (J ro..d~(ll&-t f- ;Oa_.A._,-f- o ,c. /1~") VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: \ % Cover s12ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 1- (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. = Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species ~1-
SaQling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 2-Mg) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) ~/,',::. La.~ h(f,.J,~ ' s- y FAoJ Prevalence Index worksheet :
1. ' - Total % Cover of: MultiQllr'. blr'.:
2. OBL species n X 1 = 0
3. FACW species 5 x2 = [0 4, FAC species 2) x3= 'f'S"
5. /0 iO s FACU species x4 =
~@ = Total Cover 0 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5 =
1. /Joie.us I a..~ (A_ ..f (,A~ i.s- y f'rl Column Totals: io (A) l'l.S (B) r, I - ri - '- - rr. \ ' "· > f,,11 ( L,,.__.,,, '-- 7 ,-l'-4< I Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.J2..') I - 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. 'X., 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. - 3 - Prevalence Index is :s;3 _01
7. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. _ 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10, _ Problematic Hydrophy1ic Vegetation' (Explain)
11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must .30 = Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic .
Woodlr'. Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2 (vi~ )
'--~1. R.l)tb~ ur-15 ,'11~ /0 y- FAW Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
No ~ /0 = Total Cover
Present? Yes --
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ~)
Remarkrf/ory,~ fv.;d!'Of~v;hc <N?JUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point·
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
{inches) Color (moist} ___%__ Color {moist) ___%__ .J:Y.QlL. Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-l o rqo.. n ic__ __ ---------
/-s3 101/1.. 2.// /00 NIA c/04 /oa.w - /Q05f/. . f:r ,'a,{;uz. J . --------- ' /lo /4-erJ.s I --- --------- ~-!& u;yr; ~ ;v/A --------- -:s.~,,,,., "l - {p/:, f:r'i?-. -r 0a.1,fu_ 20 l'IIA c~ /1).C((&.Ft:.'C'~
1 l . 'S'{_ I --- ---------
--- ---------
--- ---------
- -- ---------
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Oeoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Linina. M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5} _ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present. _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No )< --- Remarks: j\)() 1 I) d / c01..--b0>
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima!:i Indicators {minimum of one reguired; check all that a12121:tl Seconda!:i Indicators {2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water•Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water•Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Ory.season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (05) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes __ No! Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -- No K - /includes caoillarv frinoe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections}, if available:
Remarks: /Jo /rvj; c o.:fc rsUS Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecVSite: s-:+-o Cf'<!..$ft' [)r. City/County:&, 'k'c°"/,,5oJt/ll~ampling Date: ?/r 9(!0 ApplicanVOwner: /3o.A/..,,J?~~CPA-eff'1 I ,re., State: v/4 Sampling Point: 3B lnvestigator(s): C~ cy/~ /3,;0 · Section, Township, Range: _________________ _ Landform (hillslope, terrace. etc.}: _________ ___ Local relief (concave, convex. none): ________ Slope(%): __ _ /l C lr-7 / _-.::Zrr - c:, 91 9/''
Subregion(LRR): --'ff--'-------~- - - Lat: 3-=f- 3S:: :J c__,,.<Q 7 Long: !Z2 Z 5?, Datum: ___ _ Soil
Are climatic/
Map Unit
hydrologic
Name Ca,,ncf{t;,t::,.f-ic.£;.-/1:n
conditions on the site typical for t
I'~
his time of year? Yes ___li_ No _ _ (If no,
NW!
explain
classi
in
fi
Remarks.)
cation: ~
Are Vegetation_&_, Soil _f:}_, or Hydrology .L significantly disturbed? . Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Are Vegetation cl_, Soil _t}___, or Hydrology&__ naturally problematic? (If needed. explain any answers in Remarks.} No A
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No / CJ '!('J/j,p d ~ L ,UQA, .i,.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area 1-.J ~/1 l Yes No 1' within a Wetland? Yes~ No __ _ Wetland Hydrology Present? ~ Remarks: Ill! en ~/"\0... ,u...tLf-1-f'WuJ ... A £1CM°5j ~ , d-e>Cl\...€0-d /'":'- ;/ '..l C. -1,, c,~ o,~,14, -~"" -·~ .Al.au-if- lb . -~ e.tt·~, o~ E/J_ l?o VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: I % Cover SQecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: I (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: z_ (8)
4. SaQling/Shrub Stratum (P~ t size: "'2,_,<,t {Zf = Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: so (A/8}
)
y FAcvJ Prevalence Index worksheet:
1.~51/c..< /Q.7j)/"7~ I 5 <-O Total % Cover of: MultiQl'.Y'. b~{ 2. &8 OBL species X 1 = 0
3. FACW species x2 = lW
4, FAC species 0 x3 = 5. /0 ~o (aQ FACU species x4 = = Total Cover 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPLspecies x5=
1. Column Totals: --=10 (A} I t~D (8)
2. Prevalence Index = BIA = /4:'.'.. '28
3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
4. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
5. _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
6. ){ 3 - Prevalence Index is ::.3.0'
7. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
9. - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain}
11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must VVt ¢ = Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Woll;;,ine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. bv0 u,r.s,/'lut 10 y · Fflc<J Hydrophytic
2. Vegetation
Yes -4- LO = Total Cover Present? No --
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ~ D
Remarks:./)~ w-, 1 low SCl'fAb CO(A..(L,t> f\..;t.a..;·0,1·~ ofI (o&v.e,r- Plev, Pa.A.I of' t:)C(\~AI I _/
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point: _3 __ /3 __
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color {moist} ~ Color (moist) ~~ Loc2 Texture Remarks a - /0 Z..S'/f Z-- (jo I 01 I<- 5"/& _jQ___h___M_ s~n~ I aa...""""'---' LO · l8f' Z .") -1/! ~ !_ot./L -s /ff ___.s:._ C-- 11__ :':P-,,cl~c·1~;1 NduU!.~ ' --- -------- -
--- - --------
--- --- - -----
--- - --------
--- ---------
- -- ---------
'Tvoe: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linino, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soits3 :
_ Histosol (A 1) J: Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes .¼-- No -- Remarks: /6.clu u,c( .;5<vl'\~ so, / c-J/ Nd<i,rHYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) _ Surface Water (A1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except _ High Water Table (A2)
_ Saturation (A3)
MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
_ Salt Crust (B 11)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 48)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) )!:,.. Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present?
Water Table Present?
Saturation Present?
includes c •
Yes __ Not Depth (inches):
Yes __ No Depth (inches): ____ _
Yes __ No Depth (inches): ____ _ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Describe Recor e a a (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
(A .12.. --,t tx.f. ,~ c.e
Remarks~-/~vi Ge l)-{ .LQQ./.> oeA.J /
a.,1d q<::_ rdr~ > h{//ow /t_e,r, '2-.,-- -
NoL
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) ProjecVSite:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes1= No '
Yes ___ No=x=
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes ___ No ___K
Remark~:A-f .....e.«Je o ~ w///ow5 J ~jUU\A.J
sa1 r ;r, ~ ~ ~ro GIA/
0 VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _____ _, % Cover Species? Status
1. fks.(?f,t0C7f>M1-.S MO.,CroCJ),rpo-:- ~o 'i NL
2. --------- ------------ ------
3. ------------- ----- ---------
4. ---------------------------
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: _____ _,
1. fuli,x / o.,s ;o/eRIS i
2. - ------------ ----------- ---
3. ------------------ ---------
4. ------------------ --- ------
5. ------------------- - - ------ 2-0 = Total Cover
2. ¥¥,':....L...:~"'--';-.p=.J=c.::,,______ :r Y
3. '-'-''-'-'"""""'-=->--'--=""--"L.>..------- -- __ ,,.,,,3..,__ -1-Y-- ~L..L.::~ 4, ------------------- --------
5. - ----------------------- ---
6. ----------------- - ---------
7. ------------------- --------
8. --- ------------------------
9. -------- ---------- ------- --
10. ---------------------- --------
11. ------------------- -----------
IO = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: _____ _,
1.&/,u,5 urs >o ,,,s Y. f!ICU
2. --------------- ---
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
US Army Corps of Engineers
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Prevalence Index worksheet:
zo
Total% Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species 0 X 1 = 0
FACW species 2.0 x2= 40
FAC species 0 x 3= 0
FACU species z,5 x4 = (00
UPL species -=ro x5 = :sSO
Column Totals: \\ S- (A) ~'10
Prevalence Index = BIA =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is S3.01
(A)
(B)
(NB)
(B)
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5- Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No _L_
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point·
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) - Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color lmoistl ---22_ Color {moist) ---22_ ....IyQL Loc2 Texture Remarks O-/ ?\JIA NIA - -------- o~anlcLOYR. 3/Z- ' l- 0 100 no r--e,dQC --------- .sa.. ~ I Q::).IVt, lo-/8f Z,SY 4/2- 90 7-.S'/ R. s/48 Q_~_B_ ~ <;a 118 ,rel'¥ do."1/411 I --- ---------
--- ---------
--- ---------
--- ---------
- -- --------- 1
Type: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A1) ){_ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes -A- No --
Remarks/Waro11/1q__ !J:; ~d r-c, poss - re,//cf 0.""" W-.12..HPJ:- (0/f (/ f'-f--, Oc.,,t-::J ~re 6-W fli~f'J dvn{J EQ_ ~S/!iJ 0:::,/l«lcfv.c ,c,10 .,,.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators {minimum of one reguired; check all that ai:ii:il:tl Seconda!}'. Indicators {2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B1 1) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes __ No _K_ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes _ _ No ± Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -- No X (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks: /1__9./r'c~J e,e,,vJ'c;:lenc..e o+ h:JIA GWI /10 f Cu r N P1. f-: , US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: C l'Q 5/t 7)1'. City/County: Pac. ,"h~()..I '5a./\ Mo:fe,, Sampling Date: "2/t 9 /zo IA.br-/:::.s CQ,/1.,,,jfr, / l)c_, State: Cit Sampling Point: .......:;3~:P"---- r.s Utbocf fs10 Section, Township, Range: _________________ _ J l .L ~
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ____________ Local relief (concave, convex, none): )'VVPl.11-- Slope(%): ___ I<..' __ Subregion(LRR): ;4 Lat: '3"':/- 03)' S'3Af' Long: J"Z.2.0 2'j',<;:},ZS1I Datum: ___ _ Soil Map Unit Name: Ct>--nd &.Sr'.c£- /3()4../)/la..k NWI classification A/c(A...
Are climatic/ hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes L_ No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation JV ~, Soil fl , or Hydrology JJ, significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances· present? Yes K__ No Are Vegetation --;::;--- _ _ , Soil~. or Hydrology -;::r-- naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. -.i
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Remarks:
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
5Mf5 Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover
1. t:J.-;t.1;)/U.ro C fie_a,ti1 Ma..Cro care°'- , -40
2. 3.
4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. -10
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2-M ff )
1. Co r-+o..d.v, la._ ',,.f,,..~ JO r-. I - '-' -· ~
- ,
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. ,zo
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 2Me) )
~1 . Pvvb~s. t&:..i'.i.[a ~ S /0
2. % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum "70
Remarks:
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes ___ No _&_
Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
S12ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species '{_ ('JL- That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: JZ5 (A) '
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All S 3 trata: (8)
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species J2f That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/8) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total% Cover of: Multi[1ly by:
OBL species + X 1 =
FACW species x2=
fO FAC species x3=
FACU species 'Z-0 x4 = &?
= Total Cover
UP 10 Z.00 L species x5 =
y FA<.,U Column Totals: <oo (A) Z.80 (8)
\ I t--/\-
" -1.t- n Prevalence Index = B/A = I
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
- 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
- 3 - Prevalence Index is ,;;3_01
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
= Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
'L FAc.u Hydrophytic
Vegetation
No }( = Total Cover
Present? Yes --
/\Inv,. - h..1dro f~ 1-f L V{'~ .
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) SOIL Sampling Point· 3J:>
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
{inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist} ~....IwL_ Loc2 Texture Remarks n-18 -z.5'.f._1/4 !1.Q_ ~f'<f-4
z, 'SY 1Lt _a_ I 0'/ P.. 5/8 2.. & ~ 5o.hi"-'J w/ cl~ /r,c{ur;a,tf . ' ./ - - - ---------
--- - --- -----
- -- ---------
--- --------- --- - -------- --- --------- 1
Tvoe: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Linina, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 cm Muck {A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A 12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1 ) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X. ---
Remarks:
:5~ I'--€.. (/ C -h,,,.(>,,/ I ...R,,,,v-, 'au... e,'l u. o+- ?o...sl- ~"jk &w
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Prima!}'. Indicators {minimum of one reguired; check all that a1212ly) Seconda!}'. Indicators {2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table {A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (01) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes __ No :i.._ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes __ No ...,¼_ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes __ No L Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes --- NA, (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available:
Remarks:
No /ref IC<>---/or $
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Applicant/Owner: State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): <1
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No X
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1. 2. (A)
3. 4. (B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1. 2.
3. 4. x 1 =
5. x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1. x 5 =
2. Column Totals: (A) (B)
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. Woody Vine Stratum
1. 2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? No
No
2 2m
5 Remarks:
Indicator
Status
0 2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
1 UPL
Herb Stratum
Oxalis pes-caprae
0 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
2m
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
FACW Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
No criteria are met.
Remarks:
5 FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACU
4.49 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
98 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
10 Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
20 Multiply by:
20 Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 No
3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Sampling Date:
Sampling Point:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
4/4/2022
Brendan and Eamon Murphy
Chris Rogers
terrace
City/County: Pacifica / San Mateo
none
Long:
2m
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? No S10 T4S R6W
CA SP-1
concave
Section, Township, Range:
0.0%
)
2m )
Phoenix canariensis
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0 0
Project/Site: 570 Crespi Drive
LRR A, MLRA 4B
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
60 50
10 UPL
37.595511
UPL
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
-122.500189 Datum:
Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill complex 0-5% slopes
(Plot size:
Myoporum laetum
Salix lasiolepis
Yes
=Total Cover
1 2 No
Non-hydric vegetation dominates sample location. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis; FACW) extend over sample point from plants rooted in area mapped as wetland.
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
5 Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
265
305
53 68
=Total Cover
Rubus ursinus
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Sampling Point:
%% Type1 Loc2
100
100
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X SOIL SP-1
coarse gravelly fill with 50% 2.5Y 3/3
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Coarse gravelly fill from backyard expansion, construction of wet weather equalization basin, or historic.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-18
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 3/4
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
0-6
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
Depth Redox Features
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Shallow depression between backyard that was filled within drainage easement and berm at edge of City's parking lot. No evidence of ponding or inundation for long duration.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Applicant/Owner: State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): <1
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes No X
Yes No X Yes X
Yes No X
)
1. 2. (A)
3. 4. (B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1. 2.
3. 4. x 1 =
5. x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1. x 5 =
2. Column Totals: (A) (B)
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11. Woody Vine Stratum
1. 2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? No
3 2m
30 Remarks:
Indicator
Status
1 2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
(Plot size:
Zantedeschia aethiopica
UPL
Herb Stratum
1 No
Oxalis pes-caprae
1 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
2m
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
Slight topographic rise at back of expanded backyard. Criteria not met.
Remarks:
31 FACU species
FAC species
No
OBL species
FACU
3.26 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Amphilophium buccinatorium
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
98 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
1 UPL
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
20 Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
120
Multiply by:
40 Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Sampling Date:
Sampling Point:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
4/4/2022
Brendan and Eamon Murphy
Chris Rogers
terrace
City/County: Pacifica / San Mateo
none
Long:
2m
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? No S10 T4S R6W
CA SP-2
concave
Section, Township, Range:
50.0%
)
2m )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0 1
Project/Site: 570 Crespi Drive
LRR A, MLRA 4B
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
20 20 FACW
37.597490
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
-122.500134 Datum:
Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill complex 0-5% slopes
(Plot size:
Salix lasiolepis Yes
=Total Cover
OBL
2 No
Non-hydric vegetation dominates sample location. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis; FACW) extend over sample point from plants rooted in area mapped as wetland.
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
30 Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
15 176
3 54
=Total Cover
Rubus ursinus
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Sampling Point:
%% Type1 Loc2
100
98 98 2 C M
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X SOIL SP-2
Coarse gravelly clay; inclusions (not redox) of 10YR 3/2 Sandy clay loam
Prominent redox concentrations
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Coarse gravelly fill from backyard expansion.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 9-15
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches) Color (moist)
2.5Y 3/2
10YR 5/6
Color (moist)
7.5YR 5/8
0-9
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
2.5Y 3/2
Matrix
Texture
15-18 Sandy
Depth Redox Features
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Slight topographic rise against back backyard fence. No hydrology indicators. The sample point likely experiences periods of inundation or saturation following significant storm events, but it is not a persistent condition.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Applicant/Owner: State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): <1
Subregion (LRR): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes x No
Yes X No Yes X
Yes X No
)
1. 2. (A)
3. 4. (B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B)
1. 2.
3. 4. x 1 =
5. x 2 =
x 3 =
x 4 =
1. x 5 =
2. Column Totals: (A) (B)
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8. X
9. 10.
11. Woody Vine Stratum
1. 2.
Yes x
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Tree Stratum
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? No
2m
15 Remarks:
Indicator
Status
1 2
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
0 (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
2m
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size:
Yes
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
significantly disturbed?
All three criteria are met.
Remarks:
15 FACU species
FAC species
OBL species
FACU
2.40 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
65 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting
=Total Cover
)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(Plot size:
60 Total % Cover of:
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
60 Multiply by:
120
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0 3UHYDOHQFH,QGH[LV1
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
UPL species
FACW species
Sampling Date:
Sampling Point:
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
4/4/2022
Brendan and Eamon Murphy
Chris Rogers
terrace
City/County: Pacifica / San Mateo
none
Long:
2m
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? No S10 T4S R6W
CA SP-3
concave
Section, Township, Range:
50.0%
)
2m )
Prevalence Index worksheet:
0 0
Project/Site: 570 Crespi Drive
LRR A, MLRA 4B
NWI classification:
Dominant
Species?
60 60 FACW
37.597518
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
-122.500056 Datum:
Urban Land-Orthents, cut and fill complex 0-5% slopes
(Plot size:
Salix lasiolepis Yes
=Total Cover
Non-hydric vegetation dominates sample location. Willow canopy extends over sample location from plants rooted in area mapped as wetland.
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
15 Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Absolute
% Cover
Yes
0 180
0 75
=Total Cover
Rubus ursinus
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Sampling Point:
%% Type1 Loc2
100
48 2 C M
X
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X
X
X
X
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No SOIL SP-3
Silty clay, organic; roots and worms.
Gravelly clay; 45% 2.5Y 4/2, 5% 10YR 2/1
groundwater
Remarks
Loamy/Clayey
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Native soil, not fill (urban land/orthents) as mapped. Evidence of hydric soil resulting from long duration saturation and/or inundation.
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) 6-15
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Salt Crust (B11)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2
Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Saturation (A3)
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
(inches) Color (moist)
2.5Y 3/2
10YR 2/1
Color (moist)
2.5YR 3/6
0-6
Surface Water (A1)
Loamy/Clayey
Matrix
Texture
15-20
Depth Redox Features
Remarks:
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
Ground slope to north where standing water is accumulated. Seaonal high water table and evidence of long duration saturation and/or inundation.
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
1.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Representative Photographs
S Sample point 1A on wetland/upland boundary (2020).
S Sample point 1B in upland (2020).
1.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
S Upland/seasonal wetland boundary, near sample point 1B (2023).
S Sample point 2A in wetland, looking NE (2020).
1.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
S Near sample point 2A in wetland, looking SW (2023).
S Sample point 2B in upland (2020).
1.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
S Sample point 3C in upland (2020).
S Sample point 3D in upland (2020).
1.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
S Sample point SP-3 in willow wetland (2023).
1.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
S Sample point SP-2 in upland (2023).
1.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
Soils Report
1.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 8QLWHG6WDWHV
'HSDUWPHQWRI
$JULFXOWXUH
$SURGXFWRIWKH1DWLRQDO
&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
DMRLQWHIIRUWRIWKH8QLWHG
6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI
$JULFXOWXUHDQGRWKHU
)HGHUDODJHQFLHV6WDWH
DJHQFLHVLQFOXGLQJWKH
$JULFXOWXUDO([SHULPHQW
6WDWLRQVDQGORFDO
SDUWLFLSDQWV
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH
5HSRUWIRU
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\(DVWHUQ
3DUWDQG6DQ)UDQFLVFR
&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
1DWXUDO
5HVRXUFHV
&RQVHUYDWLRQ
6HUYLFH
-XO\
USDA
=s:=::::::;;;;;
NRCS
1.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 3UHIDFH
6RLOVXUYH\VFRQWDLQLQIRUPDWLRQWKDWDIIHFWVODQGXVHSODQQLQJLQVXUYH\DUHDV 7KH\KLJKOLJKWVRLOOLPLWDWLRQVWKDWDIIHFWYDULRXVODQGXVHVDQGSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQ DERXWWKHSURSHUWLHVRIWKHVRLOVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHDV6RLOVXUYH\VDUHGHVLJQHGIRU PDQ\GLIIHUHQWXVHUVLQFOXGLQJIDUPHUVUDQFKHUVIRUHVWHUVDJURQRPLVWVXUEDQ SODQQHUVFRPPXQLW\RIILFLDOVHQJLQHHUVGHYHORSHUVEXLOGHUVDQGKRPHEX\HUV $OVRFRQVHUYDWLRQLVWVWHDFKHUVVWXGHQWVDQGVSHFLDOLVWVLQUHFUHDWLRQZDVWH GLVSRVDODQGSROOXWLRQFRQWUROFDQXVHWKHVXUYH\VWRKHOSWKHPXQGHUVWDQG SURWHFWRUHQKDQFHWKHHQYLURQPHQW
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
KWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSV
SRUWDOQUFVPDLQVRLOVKHDOWK
DQGFHUWDLQFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGHQJLQHHULQJ
DSSOLFDWLRQV)RUPRUHGHWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDFW\RXUORFDO86'$6HUYLFH&HQWHU
KWWSV
RIILFHVVFHJRYXVGDJRYORFDWRUDSS"DJHQF\ QUFV
RU\RXU15&66WDWH6RLO
6FLHQWLVW
KWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOVRLOVFRQWDFWXV" FLG QUFVSB
*UHDWGLIIHUHQFHVLQVRLOSURSHUWLHVFDQRFFXUZLWKLQVKRUWGLVWDQFHV6RPHVRLOVDUH VHDVRQDOO\ZHWRUVXEMHFWWRIORRGLQJ6RPHDUHWRRXQVWDEOHWREHXVHGDVD IRXQGDWLRQIRUEXLOGLQJVRUURDGV&OD\H\RUZHWVRLOVDUHSRRUO\VXLWHGWRXVHDV VHSWLFWDQNDEVRUSWLRQILHOGV$KLJKZDWHUWDEOHPDNHVDVRLOSRRUO\VXLWHGWR EDVHPHQWVRUXQGHUJURXQGLQVWDOODWLRQV
7KH1DWLRQDO&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\LVDMRLQWHIIRUWRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV 'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUHDQGRWKHU)HGHUDODJHQFLHV6WDWHDJHQFLHVLQFOXGLQJWKH $JULFXOWXUDO([SHULPHQW6WDWLRQVDQGORFDODJHQFLHV7KH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV &RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
15&6
KDVOHDGHUVKLSIRUWKH)HGHUDOSDUWRIWKH1DWLRQDO
&RRSHUDWLYH6RLO6XUYH\
,QIRUPDWLRQDERXWVRLOVLVXSGDWHGSHULRGLFDOO\8SGDWHGLQIRUPDWLRQLVDYDLODEOH WKURXJKWKH15&6:HE6RLO6XUYH\WKHVLWHIRURIILFLDOVRLOVXUYH\LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH
86'$
SURKLELWVGLVFULPLQDWLRQLQDOOLWV
SURJUDPVDQGDFWLYLWLHVRQWKHEDVLVRIUDFHFRORUQDWLRQDORULJLQDJHGLVDELOLW\ DQGZKHUHDSSOLFDEOHVH[PDULWDOVWDWXVIDPLOLDOVWDWXVSDUHQWDOVWDWXVUHOLJLRQ VH[XDORULHQWDWLRQJHQHWLFLQIRUPDWLRQSROLWLFDOEHOLHIVUHSULVDORUEHFDXVHDOORUD SDUWRIDQLQGLYLGXDO
VLQFRPHLVGHULYHGIURPDQ\SXEOLFDVVLVWDQFHSURJUDP 1RW
DOOSURKLELWHGEDVHVDSSO\WRDOOSURJUDPV
3HUVRQVZLWKGLVDELOLWLHVZKRUHTXLUH
1.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) DOWHUQDWLYHPHDQVIRUFRPPXQLFDWLRQRISURJUDPLQIRUPDWLRQ %UDLOOHODUJHSULQW
DXGLRWDSHHWF
VKRXOGFRQWDFW86'$
V7$5*(7&HQWHUDW
YRLFH
DQG7''
7RILOHDFRPSODLQWRIGLVFULPLQDWLRQZULWHWR86'$'LUHFWRU2IILFHRI &LYLO5LJKWV,QGHSHQGHQFH$YHQXH6::DVKLQJWRQ'& RU
FDOO
YRLFH
RU
7''
86'$LVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\
SURYLGHUDQGHPSOR\HU
1.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) &RQWHQWV
3UHIDFH +RZ6RLO6XUYH\V$UH0DGH 6RLO0DS 6RLO0DS
/HJHQG 0DS8QLW/HJHQG 0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQV 6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\(DVWHUQ3DUWDQG6DQ)UDQFLVFR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
²&DQGOHVWLFN%DUQDEHFRPSOH[WRSHUFHQWVORSHV ²8UEDQODQG ²8UEDQODQG2UWKHQWVFXWDQGILOOFRPSOH[WRSHUFHQWVORSHV 5HIHUHQFHV
1.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) +RZ6RLO6XUYH\V$UH0DGH
6RLOVXUYH\VDUHPDGHWRSURYLGHLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXV DUHDVLQDVSHFLILFDUHD7KH\LQFOXGHDGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXV DUHDVDQGWKHLUORFDWLRQRQWKHODQGVFDSHDQGWDEOHVWKDWVKRZVRLOSURSHUWLHVDQG OLPLWDWLRQVDIIHFWLQJYDULRXVXVHV6RLOVFLHQWLVWVREVHUYHGWKHVWHHSQHVVOHQJWK DQGVKDSHRIWKHVORSHV
WKHJHQHUDOSDWWHUQRIGUDLQDJH
WKHNLQGVRIFURSVDQG
QDWLYHSODQWV
DQGWKHNLQGVRIEHGURFN7KH\REVHUYHGDQGGHVFULEHGPDQ\VRLO SURILOHV$VRLOSURILOHLVWKHVHTXHQFHRIQDWXUDOOD\HUVRUKRUL]RQVLQDVRLO7KH SURILOHH[WHQGVIURPWKHVXUIDFHGRZQLQWRWKHXQFRQVROLGDWHGPDWHULDOLQZKLFKWKH VRLOIRUPHGRUIURPWKHVXUIDFHGRZQWREHGURFN7KHXQFRQVROLGDWHGPDWHULDOLV GHYRLGRIURRWVDQGRWKHUOLYLQJRUJDQLVPVDQGKDVQRWEHHQFKDQJHGE\RWKHU ELRORJLFDODFWLYLW\
&XUUHQWO\VRLOVDUHPDSSHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHERXQGDULHVRIPDMRUODQGUHVRXUFH DUHDV
0/5$V
0/5$VDUHJHRJUDSKLFDOO\DVVRFLDWHGODQGUHVRXUFHXQLWVWKDW VKDUHFRPPRQFKDUDFWHULVWLFVUHODWHGWRSK\VLRJUDSK\JHRORJ\FOLPDWHZDWHU UHVRXUFHVVRLOVELRORJLFDOUHVRXUFHVDQGODQGXVHV
86'$
6RLOVXUYH\
DUHDVW\SLFDOO\FRQVLVWRISDUWVRIRQHRUPRUH0/5$
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
7D[RQRPLFFODVVHVDUHFRQFHSWV(DFKWD[RQRPLFFODVVKDVDVHWRIVRLO FKDUDFWHULVWLFVZLWKSUHFLVHO\GHILQHGOLPLWV7KHFODVVHVDUHXVHGDVDEDVLVIRU FRPSDULVRQWRFODVVLI\VRLOVV\VWHPDWLFDOO\6RLOWD[RQRP\WKHV\VWHPRIWD[RQRPLF FODVVLILFDWLRQXVHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLVEDVHGPDLQO\RQWKHNLQGDQGFKDUDFWHU RIVRLOSURSHUWLHVDQGWKHDUUDQJHPHQWRIKRUL]RQVZLWKLQWKHSURILOH$IWHUWKHVRLO
1.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) VFLHQWLVWVFODVVLILHGDQGQDPHGWKHVRLOVLQWKHVXUYH\DUHDWKH\FRPSDUHGWKH LQGLYLGXDOVRLOVZLWKVLPLODUVRLOVLQWKHVDPHWD[RQRPLFFODVVLQRWKHUDUHDVVRWKDW WKH\FRXOGFRQILUPGDWDDQGDVVHPEOHDGGLWLRQDOGDWDEDVHGRQH[SHULHQFHDQG UHVHDUFK
7KHREMHFWLYHRIVRLOPDSSLQJLVQRWWRGHOLQHDWHSXUHPDSXQLWFRPSRQHQWV WKH
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
1.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) LGHQWLILHGHDFKDVDVSHFLILFPDSXQLW$HULDOSKRWRJUDSKVVKRZWUHHVEXLOGLQJV ILHOGVURDGVDQGULYHUVDOORIZKLFKKHOSLQORFDWLQJERXQGDULHVDFFXUDWHO\ &XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 6RLO0DS
7KHVRLOPDSVHFWLRQLQFOXGHVWKHVRLOPDSIRUWKHGHILQHGDUHDRILQWHUHVWDOLVWRI VRLOPDSXQLWVRQWKHPDSDQGH[WHQWRIHDFKPDSXQLWDQGFDUWRJUDSKLFV\PEROV GLVSOD\HGRQWKHPDS$OVRSUHVHQWHGDUHYDULRXVPHWDGDWDDERXWGDWDXVHGWR SURGXFHWKHPDSDQGDGHVFULSWLRQRIHDFKVRLOPDSXQLW
1.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
6RLO0DS
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
: 1
0DSSURMHFWLRQ
:HE0HUFDWRU&RUQHUFRRUGLQDWHV
:*6(GJHWLFV
870=RQH1:*6
)HHW
0HWHUV
0DS6FDOH
LISULQWHGRQ$ODQGVFDSH
[
VKHHW
6RLO0DSPD\QRWEHYDOLGDWWKLVVFDOH
1.b
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 0$3/(*(1' 0$3,1)250$7,21
$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
$2,
$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
$2,
6RLOV
6RLO0DS8QLW3RO\JRQV6RLO0DS8QLW/LQHV6RLO0DS8QLW3RLQWV 6SHFLDO3RLQW)HDWXUHV
%ORZRXW%RUURZ3LW&OD\6SRW&ORVHG'HSUHVVLRQ*UDYHO3LW*UDYHOO\6SRW/DQGILOO/DYD)ORZ0DUVKRUVZDPS0LQHRU4XDUU\0LVFHOODQHRXV:DWHU3HUHQQLDO:DWHU5RFN2XWFURS6DOLQH6SRW6DQG\6SRW6HYHUHO\(URGHG6SRW6LQNKROH6OLGHRU6OLS6RGLF6SRW 6SRLO$UHD6WRQ\6SRW9HU\6WRQ\6SRW:HW6SRW2WKHU6SHFLDO/LQH)HDWXUHV :DWHU)HDWXUHV
6WUHDPVDQG&DQDOV
7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
5DLOV,QWHUVWDWH+LJKZD\V865RXWHV0DMRU5RDGV/RFDO5RDGV %DFNJURXQG
$HULDO3KRWRJUDSK\
7KHVRLOVXUYH\VWKDWFRPSULVH\RXU$2,ZHUHPDSSHGDW :DUQLQJ
6RLO0DSPD\QRWEHYDOLGDWWKLVVFDOH(QODUJHPHQWRIPDSVEH\RQGWKHVFDOHRIPDSSLQJFDQFDXVHPLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHGHWDLORIPDSSLQJDQGDFFXUDF\RIVRLOOLQHSODFHPHQW7KHPDSVGRQRWVKRZWKHVPDOODUHDVRIFRQWUDVWLQJVRLOVWKDWFRXOGKDYHEHHQVKRZQDWDPRUHGHWDLOHGVFDOH3OHDVHUHO\RQWKHEDUVFDOHRQHDFKPDSVKHHWIRUPDSPHDVXUHPHQWV6RXUFHRI0DS 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH:HE6RLO6XUYH\85/ &RRUGLQDWH6\VWHP
:HE0HUFDWRU
(36*
0DSVIURPWKH:HE6RLO6XUYH\DUHEDVHGRQWKH:HE0HUFDWRUSURMHFWLRQZKLFKSUHVHUYHVGLUHFWLRQDQGVKDSHEXWGLVWRUWVGLVWDQFHDQGDUHD$SURMHFWLRQWKDWSUHVHUYHVDUHDVXFKDVWKH$OEHUVHTXDODUHDFRQLFSURMHFWLRQVKRXOGEHXVHGLIPRUHDFFXUDWHFDOFXODWLRQVRIGLVWDQFHRUDUHDDUHUHTXLUHG7KLVSURGXFWLVJHQHUDWHGIURPWKH86'$15&6FHUWLILHGGDWDDVRIWKHYHUVLRQGDWH V
OLVWHGEHORZ6RLO6XUYH\$UHD
6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\(DVWHUQ3DUWDQG6DQ)UDQFLVFR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD6XUYH\$UHD'DWD 9HUVLRQ0D\
6RLOPDSXQLWVDUHODEHOHG
DVVSDFHDOORZV
IRUPDSVFDOHV
RUODUJHU'DWH
V
DHULDOLPDJHVZHUHSKRWRJUDSKHG
$SU
²-XQ
7KHRUWKRSKRWRRURWKHUEDVHPDSRQZKLFKWKHVRLOOLQHVZHUHFRPSLOHGDQGGLJLWL]HGSUREDEO\GLIIHUVIURPWKHEDFNJURXQG &XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
[OjofJ:~<J ~ I
l I
□ □ □ * 0 0 > + :•:
1.b
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 0$3/(*(1' 0$3,1)250$7,21
LPDJHU\GLVSOD\HGRQWKHVHPDSV$VDUHVXOWVRPHPLQRUVKLIWLQJRIPDSXQLWERXQGDULHVPD\EHHYLGHQW &XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use 0DS8QLW/HJHQG
0DS8QLW6\PERO 0DS8QLW1DPH $FUHVLQ$2, 3HUFHQWRI$2,
&DQGOHVWLFN%DUQDEHFRPSOH[
WRSHUFHQWVORSHV
8UEDQODQG
8UEDQODQG2UWKHQWVFXWDQGILOO
FRPSOH[WRSHUFHQW
VORSHV
7RWDOVIRU$UHDRI,QWHUHVW
0DS8QLW'HVFULSWLRQV
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
7KHSUHVHQFHRIPLQRUFRPSRQHQWVLQDPDSXQLWLQQRZD\GLPLQLVKHVWKH XVHIXOQHVVRUDFFXUDF\RIWKHGDWD7KHREMHFWLYHRIPDSSLQJLVQRWWRGHOLQHDWH SXUHWD[RQRPLFFODVVHVEXWUDWKHUWRVHSDUDWHWKHODQGVFDSHLQWRODQGIRUPVRU &XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) ODQGIRUPVHJPHQWVWKDWKDYHVLPLODUXVHDQGPDQDJHPHQWUHTXLUHPHQWV7KH GHOLQHDWLRQRIVXFKVHJPHQWVRQWKHPDSSURYLGHVVXIILFLHQWLQIRUPDWLRQIRUWKH GHYHORSPHQWRIUHVRXUFHSODQV,ILQWHQVLYHXVHRIVPDOODUHDVLVSODQQHGKRZHYHU RQVLWHLQYHVWLJDWLRQLVQHHGHGWRGHILQHDQGORFDWHWKHVRLOVDQGPLVFHOODQHRXV DUHDV
$QLGHQWLI\LQJV\PEROSUHFHGHVWKHPDSXQLWQDPHLQWKHPDSXQLWGHVFULSWLRQV (DFKGHVFULSWLRQLQFOXGHVJHQHUDOIDFWVDERXWWKHXQLWDQGJLYHVLPSRUWDQWVRLO SURSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
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
1.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\(DVWHUQ3DUWDQG6DQ)UDQFLVFR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
²&DQGOHVWLFN%DUQDEHFRPSOH[WRSHUFHQWVORSHV
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
K
JT
(OHYDWLRQ
WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
1RWSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
&DQGOHVWLFNDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
SHUFHQW
%DUQDEHDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW 'HVFULSWLRQRI&DQGOHVWLFN
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP
0RXQWDLQVORSHV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
%DFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
0RXQWDLQIODQN
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
&RQFDYH
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
&RQYH[
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
+DUGIUDFWXUHGUHVLGXXPZHDWKHUHGIURPVDQGVWRQH
7\SLFDOSURILOH
+WRLQFKHV
ILQHVDQG\ORDP
+WRLQFKHV
ORDP
+WRLQFKHV
VDQG\FOD\ORDP
+WRLQFKHV
XQZHDWKHUHGEHGURFN
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH
WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
WRLQFKHVWROLWKLFEHGURFN
1DWXUDOGUDLQDJHFODVV
:HOOGUDLQHG
5XQRIIFODVV
9HU\KLJK
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
0RGHUDWHO\KLJK
WRLQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
1RQH
6DOLQLW\PD[LPXPLQSURILOH
1RQVDOLQHWRYHU\VOLJKWO\VDOLQH
WR
PPKRVFP
$YDLODEOHZDWHUVWRUDJHLQSURILOH
/RZ
DERXWLQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
H
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
&
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 'HVFULSWLRQRI%DUQDEH
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP
0RXQWDLQVORSHV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
%DFNVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
0RXQWDLQIODQN
'RZQVORSHVKDSH
&RQFDYH
$FURVVVORSHVKDSH
&RQYH[
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
5HVLGXXPZHDWKHUHGIURPVDQGVWRQH
7\SLFDOSURILOH
+WRLQFKHV
YHU\JUDYHOO\VDQG\ORDP
+WRLQFKHV
YHU\JUDYHOO\VDQG\ORDP
+WRLQFKHV
XQZHDWKHUHGEHGURFN
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH
WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
WRLQFKHVWROLWKLFEHGURFN
1DWXUDOGUDLQDJHFODVV
:HOOGUDLQHG
5XQRIIFODVV
0HGLXP
&DSDFLW\RIWKHPRVWOLPLWLQJOD\HUWRWUDQVPLWZDWHU
.VDW
0RGHUDWHO\KLJKWR
KLJK
WR
LQKU
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
1RQH
6DOLQLW\PD[LPXPLQSURILOH
1RQVDOLQHWRYHU\VOLJKWO\VDOLQH
WR
PPKRVFP
$YDLODEOHZDWHUVWRUDJHLQSURILOH
9HU\ORZ
DERXW
LQFKHV
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
H
+\GURORJLF6RLO*URXS
'
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
2UWKHQWVFXW ILOO
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
8QQDPHG
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
.URQ
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
%XULEXUL
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
5RFNRXWFURS
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) ²8UEDQODQG
0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
K
KI
(OHYDWLRQ
WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
WRGD\V
)DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
1RWSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
8UEDQODQG
SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW 'HVFULSWLRQRI8UEDQ/DQG
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
7RHVORSH
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
V
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
2UWKHQWVUHFODLPHG
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
2UWKHQWVFXW ILOO
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
²8UEDQODQG2UWKHQWVFXWDQGILOOFRPSOH[WRSHUFHQWVORSHV 0DS8QLW6HWWLQJ
1DWLRQDOPDSXQLWV\PERO
K
KJ
(OHYDWLRQ
WRIHHW
0HDQDQQXDOSUHFLSLWDWLRQ
WRLQFKHV
0HDQDQQXDODLUWHPSHUDWXUH
WRGHJUHHV)
)URVWIUHHSHULRG
WRGD\V
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) )DUPODQGFODVVLILFDWLRQ
1RWSULPHIDUPODQG
0DS8QLW&RPSRVLWLRQ
8UEDQODQG
SHUFHQW
2UWKHQWVDQGVLPLODUVRLOV
SHUFHQW
0LQRUFRPSRQHQWV
SHUFHQW
(VWLPDWHVDUHEDVHGRQREVHUYDWLRQVGHVFULSWLRQVDQGWUDQVHFWVRIWKHPDSXQLW 'HVFULSWLRQRI8UEDQ/DQG
6HWWLQJ
/DQGIRUP
$OOXYLDOIDQVPDULQHWHUUDFHV
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WZRGLPHQVLRQDO
)RRWVORSH
/DQGIRUPSRVLWLRQ
WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO
7UHDG
3DUHQWPDWHULDO
$OOXYLXP
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
V
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
'HVFULSWLRQRI2UWKHQWV
3URSHUWLHVDQGTXDOLWLHV
6ORSH
WRSHUFHQW
'HSWKWRUHVWULFWLYHIHDWXUH
0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
1DWXUDOGUDLQDJHFODVV
:HOOGUDLQHG
'HSWKWRZDWHUWDEOH
0RUHWKDQLQFKHV
)UHTXHQF\RIIORRGLQJ
1RQH
)UHTXHQF\RISRQGLQJ
1RQH
,QWHUSUHWLYHJURXSV
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
LUULJDWHG
1RQHVSHFLILHG
/DQGFDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ
QRQLUULJDWHG
H
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
0LQRU&RPSRQHQWV
%RWHOOD
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
2UWKHQWVUHFODLPHG
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
6LUGUDN
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
8QQDPHG
3HUFHQWRIPDSXQLW
SHUFHQW
+\GULFVRLOUDWLQJ
1R
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) &XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 5HIHUHQFHV
$PHULFDQ$VVRFLDWLRQRI6WDWH+LJKZD\DQG7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ2IILFLDOV $$6+72
6WDQGDUGVSHFLILFDWLRQVIRUWUDQVSRUWDWLRQPDWHULDOVDQGPHWKRGVRIVDPSOLQJ DQGWHVWLQJWKHGLWLRQ
$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\IRU7HVWLQJDQG0DWHULDOV
$670
6WDQGDUGFODVVLILFDWLRQRI
VRLOVIRUHQJLQHHULQJSXUSRVHV$6706WDQGDUG' &RZDUGLQ/09&DUWHU)&*ROHWDQG(7/D5RH
&ODVVLILFDWLRQRI
ZHWODQGVDQGGHHSZDWHUKDELWDWVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV86)LVKDQG:LOGOLIH 6HUYLFH):62%6
)HGHUDO5HJLVWHU-XO\
&KDQJHVLQK\GULFVRLOVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
)HGHUDO5HJLVWHU6HSWHPEHU+\GULFVRLOVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV +XUW*:DQG/09DVLODVHGLWRUV9HUVLRQ)LHOGLQGLFDWRUVRIK\GULF VRLOVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV
1DWLRQDO5HVHDUFK&RXQFLO
:HWODQGV
&KDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGERXQGDULHV
6RLO6XUYH\'LYLVLRQ6WDII
6RLOVXUYH\PDQXDO6RLO&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH
86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRNKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDO
QUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV"FLG QUFVSB
6RLO6XUYH\6WDII
6RLOWD[RQRP\
$EDVLFV\VWHPRIVRLOFODVVLILFDWLRQIRU
PDNLQJDQGLQWHUSUHWLQJVRLOVXUYH\VQGHGLWLRQ1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ 6HUYLFH86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRNKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV"FLG QUFVSB 6RLO6XUYH\6WDII.H\VWRVRLOWD[RQRP\WKHGLWLRQ86'HSDUWPHQWRI $JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFHKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV"FLG QUFVSB 7LQHU5:-U
:HWODQGVRI'HODZDUH86)LVKDQG:LOGOLIH6HUYLFHDQG 'HODZDUH'HSDUWPHQWRI1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHVDQG(QYLURQPHQWDO&RQWURO:HWODQGV 6HFWLRQ
8QLWHG6WDWHV$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV(QYLURQPHQWDO/DERUDWRU\ &RUSVRI
(QJLQHHUVZHWODQGVGHOLQHDWLRQPDQXDO:DWHUZD\V([SHULPHQW6WDWLRQ7HFKQLFDO 5HSRUW<
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 1DWLRQDOIRUHVWU\PDQXDOKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOVRLOV
KRPH"FLG QUFVSB
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 1DWLRQDOUDQJHDQGSDVWXUHKDQGERRNKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFV
GHWDLOQDWLRQDOODQGXVHUDQJHSDVWXUH"FLG VWHOSUGE
1.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH 1DWLRQDOVRLOVXUYH\KDQGERRNWLWOH9,KWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDO
QUFVGHWDLOVRLOVVFLHQWLVWV"FLG QUFVSB
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH /DQGUHVRXUFHUHJLRQVDQGPDMRUODQGUHVRXUFHDUHDVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV WKH&DULEEHDQDQGWKH3DFLILF%DVLQ86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRN
KWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRYZSVSRUWDOQUFVGHWDLOQDWLRQDOVRLOV" FLG QUFVSB
8QLWHG6WDWHV'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH6RLO&RQVHUYDWLRQ6HUYLFH /DQG
FDSDELOLW\FODVVLILFDWLRQ86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH+DQGERRNKWWS
ZZZQUFVXVGDJRY,QWHUQHW)6(B'2&80(176QUFVSB SGI
&XVWRP6RLO5HVRXUFH5HSRUW
1.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
WETS Tables
Note: the nearest station with sufficient precipitation data (20 years) for generating WETS tables is the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant in southwest San Francisco, approximately 8.9 miles north of the Crespi Drive site. The coastal setting and overall climate are similar. ... WETS Station: SAN FRANCISCO OCEANSIDE, CA
Requested years: 2000 - 2020
Temperature {°F) Precipitation (inches)
Month Avg Avg Avg 30o/a chance Avg number Average will have of days with daily daily daily Avg 0.10 inch total max min mean less than more than snowfall
or more
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May 59.1 50.3 54.7
Jun
Jul 0.01 0.00 0.00 0
Aug 62.5 54.8 58.7
Sep
Oct
Nov 63.4 49.3 56.3
Dec
Annual:
Average
Total
IGROWING SEASON DATES
Requested years of data: 2000-2020 ,,.
◄ ►
1.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Updated Delineation and Effects Analysis
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
National Wetland Inventory Map
0 0.05
0 0.015 0.15
August 20, 2020
Wetlands D Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater ■ Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland D Estuarine and Marine Wetland D Freshwater Pond
National wetlands Inventory
■ Lake
0 Other
Riverine
Thi$ map iS for general rel&rence ontv. The US FiSh and Wildlife Sorwice Is not rosponsiblo for the accuracy or currontnoss of tho base data shown on this map. Al wetlands related dala should b& used in accordance with the layer moladata found on the WeUonds Mapper web sile.
NWOt"I.IIWol~ lnvon:ory{NV\4)
This- page WU produced by the NW mapper
1.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
WOOD BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters
540 and 570 Crespi Drive, Pacifica, CA
California Aquatic Resource Inventory Map
100 .n
Pacifica
State Beach
California Aquatic Resource Inventory Map Baisemap daih provided by :C OpenStreetMaip
1.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive
Project
SCH# 2021120126
Draft Environmental Impact
Report
Prepared for
City of Pacifica
April 2025
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
RANEY --PLANNlNG & MANAGEMENT, lNC. y,ea.M
1.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) 570 Crespi Drive Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2021120126
Lead Agency
City of Pacifica
Planning Division
1800 Francisco Boulevard
Pacifica, CA 94044
Brianne Harkousha
Deputy Director of Community Development
(650) 738-7341
Prepared By
Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 372-6100
Contact:
Rod Stinson
Vice President
Lead Agency
Prepared By
1.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Table of Contents
Page i
CHAPTER PAGE
1. Introduction .......................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Type and Purpose of the EIR ......................................................................1-1
1.2 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies .................................................1-1
1.3 Project Summary.........................................................................................1-2
1.4 EIR Process................................................................................................1-3
1.5 Scope of the EIR.........................................................................................1-4
1.6 Definition of Baseline .................................................................................1-4
1.7 Notice of Preparation and Scoping..............................................................1-5
1.8 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation......................................1-5
1.9 Draft EIR and Public Review .......................................................................1-6
1.10 Organization of the Draft EIR ......................................................................1-6
2. Executive Summary............................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Summary Description of the Proposed Project ............................................2-1
2.3 Environmental Impacts and Proposed and Recommended Mitigation.........2-2
2.4 Summary of Project Alternatives .................................................................2-2
2.5 Areas of Known Controversy.......................................................................2-4
3. Project Description................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Location ..........................................................................................3-1
3.3 Background.................................................................................................3-1
3.4 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses................................................3-4
3.5 Project Objectives .......................................................................................3-4
3.6 Project Components....................................................................................3-4
3.7 Requested Discretionary Actions ..............................................................3-16
4. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
4.0 Introduction to the Analysis ........................................ 4.0-1
4.0.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................4.0-1
4.0.2 Determination of Significance...................................................................4.0-1
4.0.3 Environmental Issues Dismissed in the Initial Study.................................4.0-2
4.0.4 Environmental Issues Addressed in this EIR............................................4.0-8
4.0.5 Technical Chapter Format........................................................................4.0-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Table of Contents
Page ii
CHAPTER PAGE
4.1 Biological Resources................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................4.1-1
4.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting.................................................................4.1-1
4.1.3 Regulatory Context ................................................................................4.1-12
4.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................4.1-19
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................4.2-1
4.2.2 Existing Environmental Setting.................................................................4.2-1
4.2.3 Regulatory Context ..................................................................................4.2-4
4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................4.2-16
4.3 Transportation........................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................4.3-1
4.3.2 Existing Environmental Setting.................................................................4.3-1
4.3.3 Regulatory Context ..................................................................................4.3-5
4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................4.3-9
5. Statutorily Required Sections ................................................ 5-1
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................5-1
5.3 Cumulative Impacts.....................................................................................5-3
5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ..........................................5-5
5.5 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts...........................................................5-6
6. Alternatives Analysis............................................................. 6-1
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Purpose of Alternatives ...............................................................................6-1
6.3 Selection of Alternatives..............................................................................6-3
6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative.........................................................6-11
7. EIR Authors and Persons Consulted ...................................... 7-1
8. References ............................................................................ 8-1 Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study Appendix B NOP Comment Letters
Appendix C Biological Constraints Analysis
Appendix D Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources and Effects Analysis Appendix E CalEEMod Modeling Results
Appendix F VMT Analysis
1.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Table of Contents
Page iii
FIGURE PAGE
3. Project Description
3-1 Regional Project Location ...........................................................................3-2 3-2 Project Location Map ..................................................................................3-3 3-3 Site Plan .....................................................................................................3-5 3-4 Tentative Subdivision Map ..........................................................................3-7 3-5 Floor Plan – Level 1 ....................................................................................3-8 3-6 Floor Plan – Level 2 ....................................................................................3-9 3-7 Buildings B and C Floor Plan – Level 3 .....................................................3-10 3-8 Off-Site Improvements ..............................................................................3-12 3-9 Site Landscaping Plan...............................................................................3-13 3-10 Off-Site Landscaping Plan.........................................................................3-14 3-11 Preliminary Utility Plan ..............................................................................3-15 3-12 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan – Northeastern Portion................3-17 3-13 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan – Southwestern Portion...............3-18
4.1. Biological Resources
4.1-1 Vegetation Communities ..........................................................................4.1-3
4.1-2 Wetland Map............................................................................................4.1-6
4.1-3 Special-Status Plant Species Within Five Miles of Study Area .................4.1-8
4.1-4 Special-Status Wildlife Species Within Five Miles of Study Area..............4.1-9
4.3. Transportation
4.3-1 Existing and Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities............................4.3-3
6. Alternatives Analysis
6-1 Reduced Intensity Alternative Site Plan.......................................................6-9
LIST OF FIGURES
1.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Table of Contents
Page iv
TABLE PAGE
2. Executive Summary
2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................2-5
4.1. Biological Resources
4.1-1 Wetlands and Uplands in the Study Area.......................................................4.1-5
4.2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.2-1 GWPs and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Select GHGs ........................................4.2-2
4.2-2 Unmitigated Project Operational GHG Emissions ........................................4.2-19
4.3. Transportation
4.3-1 Project Trip Generation................................................................................4.3-10
4.3-2 Project VMT Analysis Results ......................................................................4.3-15
6. Alternatives Analysis
6-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives .......................6-12
LIST OF TABLES
1.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: ATT A-Draft Resolution EIR+Exhibits-570 Crespi-251202 (6098 : Crespi Drive Mixed Use Project Considerations) Draft EIR
570 Crespi Drive Project
April 2025
Chapter 1 – Introduction