Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics Feature Project
Alternative 1
(No Project)
Alternative 2
(50% Reduced
Residential)
Alternative 3
(Reduced
Commercial FAR)
Alternative 4
(Expanded
Development in
SOI)
City Limit (acres) 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167 1,167
Sphere of Influence
(acres)
1,282 1,282 1,282 1,282 1,282
Project/Alternative
Planning Area
(acres)
1,167
(City Limit only)
1,167
(City Limit only)
1,167
(City Limit only)
1,167
(City Limit only)
1,295
(City Limit + 10%
of SOI)
2040 Total Dwelling
Units
7,025 6,390 6,470 7,025 8,825
2040 Population 10,216 9,040 9,227 10,216 13,422
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-3
Feature Project
Alternative 1
(No Project)
Alternative 2
(50% Reduced
Residential)
Alternative 3
(Reduced
Commercial FAR)
Alternative 4
(Expanded
Development in
SOI)
2040 Total Non-
Residential Floor
Area 1 (square feet)
12,014,768 12,194,420 12,014,768 11,859,936 12,014,768
1Non-residential = Retail, Service, Office, which is comprised of Commercial, Industrial, and Public/Semi Public Uses FAR = Floor Area Ratio
SOI = Sphere of Influence
6.2 Alternatives Analysis
6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Continue Using 1992 General Plan and Local Coastal Plan
6.2.1.1 Description
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a “no project” alternative be evaluated in an EIR to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) describes the two general types of no project alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan; and (2) when the project is not a land use/regulatory plan, such as a specific development on an identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which that project is not processed (i.e., no development occurs). Alternative 1 represents the former type of no project alternative and assumes the continued implementation of the existing 1992 GP/LCP.
This alternative is comprised of a land use pattern that reflects the land use identified in the existing 1992 GP/LCP, most recently updated in 2018 (Land Use and Circulation Elements). Under this alternative, the proposed GP/LCP Update would not be adopted and the existing GP/LCP, including the land use map and all of the GP/LCP goals and policies, would remain in place through the horizon year of 2040. Thus, any new development in Pismo Beach would occur consistent with the existing land use designations and the allowed uses within each designation. Similarly, any new infrastructure would occur as envisioned in the existing 1992 General Plan. Development under this alternative is anticipated to be generally similar in much of the City but would not include mixed-use development in the downtown area, a focus on affordable housing and other updates to comply with current State law, lower-cost visitor-serving accommodations, and updates to address sea level rise and resiliency. Buildout of the existing 1992 GP/LCP was estimated as part of the 2018 Circulation Element Update, and was found to provide for the growth of 476 new residential units and 690 jobs as compared to an estimated 1,111 new residential units and 545 jobs under the proposed GP/LCP Update. As a result, overall residential development and anticipated population growth would be reduced under the No Project Alternative compared to the GP/LCP Update, whereas overall non-residential (commercial, mixed use, and public/semi-public) development and anticipated jobs growth would be increased under the No Project Alternative compared to the GP/LCP Update (refer to Table 6-1).
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-4
6.2.1.2 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Implementation of Alternative 1 would reduce residential development by approximately 9 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Conversely, implementation of Alternative 1 would increase non- residential development by approximately 1.5 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 1 would involve less overall residential development and anticipated population growth than would occur under the GP/LCP Update but would result in increased non-residential development and anticipated jobs growth. Growth envisioned in the GP/LCP Update encourages mixed uses in the downtown area and focuses on affordability. The GP/LCP Update would also facilitate development for housing and mixed uses on existing vacant and underutilized parcels.
Alternative 1 would continue the currently planned development pattern throughout Pismo Beach.
For example, Alternative 1 would not provide a focus on conserving the existing housing stock and character or improving the commercial and pedestrian environment of Shell Beach to enhance the beach community, nor would it support a vibrant Downtown area that acts as a destination for all by providing motel and hotel uses, as well as supporting uses such as commercial, mixed-use, high- density residential, and recreation. Thus, under Alternative 1, visibility from and of scenic vistas, the city’s visual character, and light and glare conditions would not be changed to the extent anticipated under the GP/LCP Update. In addition, Alternative 1 would not create substantial changes to the existing pattern of development for the Shell Beach and Downtown Core area as would the GP/LCP Update, impacting fewer aesthetic resources, and reducing the potential change in visual character.
Overall, impacts to aesthetic resources would be reduced under Alternative 1. Aesthetic impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Air Quality
Implementation of Alternative 1 would reduce residential development by approximately 9 percent and increase non-residential development by approximately 1.5 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 1 would involve less overall development and construction-related emissions of air pollutants would be reduced under Alternative 1 as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP would accommodate 476 new housing units in Pismo Beach. This would be approximately 635 fewer housing units than would be accommodated by full implementation of the GP/LCP Update, resulting in an approximately 9 percent reduction in residential development as well as an overall reduction in population growth potential. However, full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP would result in 962,920 square feet of additional non-residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update, an increase of approximately 1.5 percent. Due to the overall decrease in development under Alternative 1, construction emissions and long-term emissions would be reduced as compared to the GP/LCP Update.
The GP/LCP Update includes policies that would maintain and improve local air quality through local actions and interagency coordination; minimize adverse effects associated with criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs); promote compact development and reduce VMT; and address potential odor conflicts between future land uses in Pismo Beach. The GP/LCP Update also includes policies that would reduce mobile source emissions by promoting mixed-use and infill development and supporting bike, pedestrian, and mass transit. As a result, the GP/LCP Update would reduce the per capita VMT within infill and urban areas of Pismo Beach compared to the 1992 GP/LCP, which does not contain these policies. However, the estimated citywide traffic growth through 2040 under implementation of the GP/LCP Update would still be increased by 20 percent as compared to the
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-5
1992 GP/LCP. Because the majority of air contaminant emissions are from mobile sources, overall air quality impacts would be reduced under Alternative 1 as compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the reduction in total VMT.
The increase in VMT under implementation of the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District’s (SLOAPCD’s) 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) guidance for VMT increase (20 percent) less than the rate of population growth (23 percent) and would implement applicable land use and transportation control measures contained in the 2001 CAP. However, the GP/LCP Update would add an estimated 1,875 residents to Pismo Beach by 2040, resulting in an estimated 10,216 persons, which would exceed the SLOCOG projected 2040 population of 9,901 residents. As a result, the GP/LCP Update would obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and would contribute to cumulative regional air quality impacts, which is a significant and unavoidable impact that would be reduced under implementation of Alternative 1. Specifically, Alternative 1 would result in a 2040 population of 9,040 person in 2040 which would not exceed the SLOCOG projected 2040 population of 9,041 persons. Overall, air quality impacts under Alternative 1 would be reduced as compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the reduction in population growth that would ensure consistency with the 2001 CAP and lower the City’s contribution to cumulative regional air quality impacts. In addition, Alternative 1 would reduce the GP/LCP Update’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to inconsistency with the 2001 CAP to less than significant.
Biological Resources
Implementation of Alternative 1 would reduce residential development by approximately 9 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Conversely, implementation of Alternative 1 would increase non- residential development by approximately 1.5 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 1 would involve less overall new development as compared to the GP/LCP Update.
While the 1992 General Plan/Local Coastal Plan includes objectives and policies aimed towards reducing potential impacts to sensitive biological resources from development, several goals and policies in the proposed GP/LCP Update Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element would minimize, and often avoid, impacts from potential direct and indirect effects to special status species and sensitive habitats, reduce impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat through preservation and enhancement of such habitats, reduce impacts to stream corridors, and protect wildlife movement corridors and open space. Development under both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update would be subject to the provisions of federal and State natural resources regulations and their respective permitting processes and would comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to reduce potential impacts to biological resources. Overall, Alternative 1 would result in reduced impacts to biological resources as compared to the GP/LCP because overall development under this alternative is anticipated to be reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to biological resources under Alternative 1 would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of Alternative 1 would reduce residential development by approximately 9 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Conversely, implementation of Alternative 1 would increase non- residential development by approximately 1.5 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 1 would involve less overall residential development and anticipated population growth than would occur under the GP/LCP Update but would result in increased non-residential development and anticipated jobs growth. While the 1992 GP/LCP includes two policies aimed
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-6
toward reducing potential impacts to sensitive archaeological resources from development, the 1992 GP/LCP does not address potential impacts to historic resources. The goals, policies, and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update that would protect archaeological and historic resources would not be implemented under Alternative 1. Development under both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update would be required to comply with federal and State regulations as well as the City’s Municipal Code, which would require identification, evaluation, and protection of historic resources throughout the City. Development under both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update would also be subject to laws and regulations requiring Native American consultation, protection of human remains, and pre-historic artifacts. Overall, Alternative 1 would result in reduced impacts to tribal, archaeological and historic resources compared to the GP/LCP Update because development under this alternative is anticipated to be reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Energy
Overall energy usage would be reduced under Alternative 1 as compared to the GP/LCP Update because less overall new development would be constructed. Full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP would accommodate 476 new housing units in Pismo Beach. This would be approximately 635 fewer housing units than would be accommodated by full implementation of the GP/LCP Update, resulting in an approximately 9 percent reduction in residential development as well as an overall reduction in population growth potential. However, full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP would add 962,920 square feet of non-residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in an increase of non-residential development by approximately 1.5 percent as well as an overall increase in jobs growth. Due to the overall reduction in development, Alternative 1 would result in a reduction in energy usage during construction and operation of new development in Pismo Beach.
The reduction in population growth potential would reduce daily operations in the regional transportation system, resulting in an overall reduction in total estimated VMT. Because daily operation of the transportation system uses energy in the form of fuel consumed by propulsion of passenger and commercial vehicles, a reduction in total estimated VMT would result in a reduction in overall energy consumption compared to the GP/LCP Update. Alternative 1 would retain the existing 1992 GP/LCP, and thus would not implement GP/LCP Update Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, and Circulation Element goals and policies that would reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Overall, impacts related to energy consumption under Alternative 1 would be lower than the GP/LCP Update due to the reduction in overall development and decrease in energy consumption related to reduced VMT. Energy impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-7
Geology and Soils
Implementation of Alternative 1 would reduce residential development by approximately 9 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Conversely, implementation of Alternative 1 would increase non- residential development by approximately 1.5 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, overall development envisioned in the 1992 GP/LCP would involve a reduced amount of construction activities as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Reduced construction activities under Alternative 1 would include a reduction in stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving and other earth disturbing activities that could result in loose and disturbed soils in the Pismo Beach, decreasing the potential for erosion, loss of topsoil, and disturbance to paleontological resources. However, implementation of the GP/LCP Update would, in some cases, replace older buildings that are subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Similar to the proposed project, development facilitated by Alternative 1 would adhere to 1992 General Plan/Local Coastal Plan includes objectives and policies aimed towards reducing potential impacts related to geology and soils from future development, Alternative 1 would not implement policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element that would reduce the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil. In addition, Alternative 1 would not implement policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element related to protection of paleontological resources. However, both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update would be required to comply with requirements outlined by the California Building Code and the Pismo Beach Municipal Code, and would require compliance with existing state and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development, which would reduce potential impacts. Overall, Alternative 1 would result in reduced impacts to geology and soils compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts related to geology and soils under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The existing Pismo Beach Climate Action Plan (PBCAP) only contains targets to meet Assembly Bill (AB) 32 2020 reduction goals, and Pismo Beach has not published a qualified Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction plan that is consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 32 and the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan goals. Buildout under the GP/LCP Update could be inconsistent with statewide per capita emissions goals in the 2017 Scoping Plan and may exceed applicable SLOAPCD thresholds on a project-by-project basis. However, of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update includes actions which would require an update to the PBCAP to reflect the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets established by SB 32. The updated PBCAP would contain goals, policies, project specific GHG thresholds, and programs to achieve GHG reduction targets for Pismo Beach and future development in the City consistent with SB 32 and demonstrate a trajectory towards meeting the reduction target in Executive Order S-3-05.
Therefore, impacts to greenhouse gases would be less than significant.
Alternative 1 would retain the existing 1992 GP/LCP, and thus would not implement the GP/LCP Update Land Use and Circulation Elements goals and policies that would promote mixed-use and compact development and support bike, pedestrian, and mass transit. Additionally, Alternative 1 would not include updates to the Conservation and Open Space Element to include actions to update the PBCAP to reflect the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not include goals, policies, project specific GHG thresholds, and programs to achieve GHG reduction targets for Pismo Beach and future development in the City consistent with SB 32 and demonstrate a trajectory towards meeting the reduction target in Executive Order S-3-05.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-8
As a result, implementation of Alternative 1 would not reduce overall per capita GHG emissions in Pismo Beach to the extent of the GP/LCP Update, and would not ensure that the city’s emissions reductions are on the trajectory to meet the state’s long term emissions goals, which have been updated since preparation of the existing PBCAP. Similarly, Alternative 1 would be less consistent with recently-adopted State plans and regulations for reducing GHG emissions.
The total estimated citywide VMT through 2040 under Alternative 1 would be lower than the GP/LCP Update because of the lower projected residential development and population growth under this alternative. However, non-residential development and associated jobs growth would be increased under Alternative 1. Based on the buildout VMT estimates in the GP/LCP Update traffic analysis (Appendix G) and the 2040 population estimates in Table 6-1, Alternative 1 would result in less of a long-term increase in VMT in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. While the existing 1992 GP/LCP does not focus on infill development or GHG emissions to the extent of the proposed GP/LCP Update, Alternative 1 would result in fewer total and per capita mobile-source GHG emissions compared with the GP/LCP Update. Overall, impacts related to GHG emissions under Alternative 1 would be higher than the GP/LCP Update because the goals, policies, project specific GHG thresholds, and programs to achieve GHG reduction targets for Pismo Beach and future development in the City consistent with SB 32 and demonstrate a trajectory towards meeting the reduction target in Executive Order S-3-05 would not be implemented. Impacts to GHG would greater than the GP/LCP Update and would be potentially significant and unavoidable because of the inconsistency with the PBCAP, which would not be updated under this alternative.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Full buildout of both the 1992 GP/LCP and the GP/LCP Update would facilitate an increase in development in Pismo Beach, which could involve the routine use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Additional development in Pismo Beach could also increase the transport of hazardous materials along the transportation corridors within the City. Therefore, the additional development that would occur under both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update could result in an increased risk of accidental release of hazardous materials on a transportation route and exposure to hazardous materials to existing development within Pismo Beach. However, development under Alternative 1 would result in a 9 percent reduction in residential development and a 1.5 percent increase in non-residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire would be reduced under Alternative 1 as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, the GP/LCP Update would increase mixed-use development in the downtown area, which could result in new residential units adjacent to existing commercial and industrial land uses. The policies that would be implemented under the GP/LCP Update would direct the City to develop and maintain a multi-hazard emergency response plan, update plans and agreements with other agencies, and regulate use, location, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials. Both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the USEPA, the State of California, San Luis Obispo County, and the City of Pismo Beach related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Under both Alternative 1 and the GC/LCP Update, compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Overall, Alternative 1 would result in reduced potential impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire compared to the
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-9
GP/LCP Update. Impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire under Alternative 1 would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Full buildout of both the 1992 GP/LCP and the GP/LCP Update would facilitate an increase in development in Pismo Beach, which could result in long-term alterations of existing drainage patterns, such as changes in ground surface permeability, and increased soil erosion due to new paving, earth-moving activities, and changes in topography that would result from excavation, cut and fill activities, and grading. However, development under Alternative 1 would result in a 9 percent reduction in residential development and a 1.5 percent increase in non-residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would involve a reduced amount of construction as compared to the GP/LCP Update . As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under Alternative 1 as compared to the GP/LCP Update. However, Alternative 1 would not implement the goals and policies in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element, and Land Use Element that would reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction activities; reduce the potential for hydrology and water quality impacts during operation of new development or redevelopment; address bluff erosion; reduce discharge of additional stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from new development and redevelopment; and provide direction for groundwater management.
Under both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update, individual construction activities that disturb one or more acres would be subject to the requirements of the General Construction Permit, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that describes the erosion and sediment controls Best Management Practices (BMPs), good housekeeping BMPS, runoff water quality monitoring, BMP inspections, means of waste disposal, maintenance responsibilities, and non-storm water management controls to be implemented during construction. Alternative 1 would also require compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Pismo Beach Municipal Code, which would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Overall, Alternative 1 would result in reduced potential impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 1, additional development that would occur in Pismo Beach would be consistent with the existing 1992 GP/LCP. Both the proposed GP/LCP Update and Alternative 1 would provide for the orderly development of Pismo Beach, although under different development scenarios.
Neither would physically divide an established community or conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with applicable regional land use plans, policies, and regulations, such as the SLOCOG 2019 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and City zoning districts and standards. Alternative 1 would retain the existing 1992 GP/LCP, and thus would not include new GP/LCP Update policies, such as those in the Land Use Element that would increase connectivity of the City’s circulation network throughout the City and to the coast. Under the GP/LCP Update, connectivity would be provided through equitable access for residents, employees, and tourists to address daily needs, strategic land use planning for new development and redevelopment, reduction in conflict between land uses, and preservation and provision of lateral and vertical access points and multimodal access. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have greater
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-10
impacts related to long-term land use and planning compared to the GP/LCP Update, although impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Noise
Development under Alternative 1 would result in a 9 percent reduction in residential development and a 1.5 percent increase in non-residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update.
Therefore, decreased construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur under Alternative 1 as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, infill and redevelopment facilitated by the proposed GP/LCP Update would increase noise near existing sensitive receivers and place new sensitive receivers in areas with high noise levels. Alternative 1 would involve less dense development and fewer noise sensitive receivers would be exposed to increased noise levels associated with infill and redevelopment. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have reduced noise impacts as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Noise impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Population and Housing
As shown in Table 4.12-5 (Section 4.11, Population and Housing), the anticipated population growth in Pismo Beach through 2040 under the GP/LCP Update is consistent with the SLOCOG population growth projections for the City. Alternative 1 would accommodate less population growth than the GP/LCP Update and would also be consistent with the SLOCOG population growth projections for the City. Specifically, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in a reduction in population growth by approximately 11.5 percent as compared to the GP/LCP Update. In addition, growth in Pismo Beach under Alternative 1 would still be required to be consistent with the City of Pismo Beach Housing Element, adopted in 2020. Neither Alternative 1 nor the GP/LCP Update would displace substantial numbers of people or housing. Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be similar to the GP/LCP Update. Population and housing impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 1 would involve less overall residential development and associated population growth than would occur under the GP/LCP Update, but would result in an increase in non-residential development and associated jobs growth. Full buildout of Alternative 1 would result in an increase of 476 new residential units and 690 jobs, which would generate an increase in population and result in an incremental demand for public services and recreational facilities. However, the increase in demand would be less than the GP/LCP Update due to the smaller increase in population growth. Both Alternative 1 and the GP/LCP Update are subject to policies that would ensure that public services continue to be provided to the city commensurate with population growth and need.
In addition, project-level development under Alternative 1 would be required to pay City-required public facilities impact fees. Both implementation of Alternative 1 and implementation of the GP/LCP Update would achieve the standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, pursuant to the Quimby Act. Overall, impacts related to public services and recreation would be reduced in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts related to public services and recreation would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-11
Transportation
When compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update, full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP would accommodate approximately 635 fewer housing units but would provide for an additional 145 jobs.
As a result, overall residential development and anticipated population growth would be reduced under Alternative 1 compared to the GP/LCP Update, whereas overall non-residential (commercial) development and anticipated jobs growth would be increased under Alternative 1. The GP/LCP Update includes policies that would reduce per service population VMT compared to the 1992 GP/LCP by promoting mixed-use and infill development, and by supporting bike, pedestrian, and mass transit. However, the estimated citywide traffic growth through 2040 under implementation of Alternative 1 would be lower than under the GP/LCP Update because of the lower projected residential development and population growth under this Alternative. As a result, the average daily vehicle trips and VMT that would be generated from the additional residents under the GP/LCP Update would be reduced with this alternative. Due to the increase in job growth that would be facilitated by full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP through 2040, an increase in average daily vehicle trips and VMT would be generated from the increase in employees in Pismo Beach. Nonetheless, due to the reduction in residential units and population growth as compared to the GP/LCP Update, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in reduced VMT.
Table 6-2 summarizes the regional annual VMT results under both implementation of Alternative 1 and implementation for the GP/LCP Update through the year 2040. As shown in Table 6-2, the proposed GP/LCP Update is projected to increase regional annual VMT under 2040 buildout conditions, resulting in an increase of approximately 2.25 million annual VMT from the existing condition, and an increase of approximately 165,509 over buildout of the current GP/LCP. However, full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP is also projected to increase regional annual VMT under 2040 buildout conditions, resulting in an increase of approximately 2.1 million annual VMT from the existing condition.
Table 6-2 Total Regional Annual VMT Results Summary
Model Scenario VMT
Existing (2019)1 11,226,484
Buildout - Current General Plan (2040) 13,311,157
Buildout - GP/LCP Update (2040) 13,476,666
1 The “Existing (2019)” scenario refers to the 2010 Pismo Beach Travel Demand Model year, which was adjusted to account for the CEQA baseline year of 2019 in order to fully represent the existing regional land uses and transportation network.
Source: Appendix G
Alternative 1 would retain the existing 1992 GP/LCP, and thus would not implement GP/LCP Update Land Use Element and Circulation Element goals, policies, and actions that would promote infill development and redevelopment and enhance the City’s alternative transportation modes while continuing to accommodate automobile travel. As a result, implementation of Alternative 1 would not contribute to reducing per service population VMT in Pismo Beach to the extent of the GP/LCP Update. Overall, due to the reduced residential development and population growth potential of Alternative 1, this alternative would result in less of a long-term increase in VMT in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. However, full buildout of the 1992 GP/LCP would still increase regional VMT above the existing conditions. According to the California Office of Research and Planning, any increase in regional VMT over existing conditions is considered a significant and unavoidable impact
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-12
(OPR 2018). Therefore, impacts to transportation would be reduced under Alternative 1 but would remain significant and unavoidable.
Utilities/Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.14, Utilities/Service Systems, the GP/LCP Update’s potential impacts related to the provision of utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Alternative 1 would result in a 9 percent reduction in residential development and a 1.5 percent increase in non- residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update. In addition, Alternative 1 would facilitate a decrease in anticipated population growth compared to the GP/LCP Update. As a result, Alternative 1 would result in a reduced demand for water, wastewater treatment capacity, and other utilities. Overall, impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to utilities and service systems would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
6.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Buildout
6.2.2.1 Description
Under the Reduced Residential Buildout Alternative, the maximum residential buildout that would occur within the 2040 planning horizon is assumed to be reduced by 50% for all residential land use designations (low-density, medium-density, high density, very high-density, and mobile home park).
Development under Alternative 2 assumes that all goals and policies put in place by the GP/LCP Update will be in force.
A reduced residential buildout scenario would reduce overall new development in the City as well as the estimated population growth associated with increased residential buildout, resulting in a corresponding decrease in in potential environmental impacts associated with new development and growth, including the significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and transportation identified in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. However, a reduced residential buildout scenario would not meet the GP/LCP Update objective to ensure the City’s land use plan would meet the City’s fair share housing needs allocation established in SLOCOG’s RHNP (discussed in detail in Section 4.12, Population and Housing).
Under Alternative 2, at buildout up to approximately 556 new residential units would be constructed in the City limits (as compared to approximately 1,111 new residential units under the proposed GP/LCP Update). This would be a reduction in new residential development potential of approximately 555 units as compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. A comparison of the development that could occur under Alternative 2 and the GP/LCP Update is provided in Table 6-1.
6.2.2.2 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in all residential land use, causing an overall reduction in new development as well as a reduction in the estimated population growth that is associated with increased residential buildout under the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, the existing visual character of Pismo Beach would be altered less under Alternative 2 in comparison to the GP/LCP Update because the maximum residential buildout would be reduced. Additionally, because fewer residential units would be developed, fewer new sources of light and glare would be created under this alternative. Overall, Alternative 2 would have reduced impacts to aesthetics as
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-13
compared to the GP/LCP Update. Aesthetic impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Air Quality
Construction-related emissions of air pollutants would be less under Alternative 2 as compared to the GP/LCP Update because less new residential development would be constructed. Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of growth in population in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by 1,176 residents compared to the GP/LCP Update due to an overall reduction in residential development by 50 percent. Therefore, the long-term operational emissions from use of natural gas for heating, cooking, and water heating would be reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update. Alternative 2 would continue to implement policies that would maintain and improve local air quality through local actions and interagency coordination; minimize adverse effects associated with criteria pollutants and TACs; promote compact development and reduce VMT; and address potential odor conflicts between future land uses in Pismo Beach. Alternative 2 would also implement policies that would reduce mobile source emissions by promoting mixed-use and infill development and supporting bike, pedestrian, and mass transit. As a result of these policies and the reduction in population growth potential, the estimated citywide traffic growth through 2040 under implementation of Alternative 2 would be lower than under the GP/LCP Update, resulting in lower total VMT. Because the majority of air quality emissions are from mobile sources, overall air quality impacts would be less under this alternative than under the GP/LCP Update due to the reduced total VMT.
Additionally, Alternative 2 would be more consistent with the 2001 CAP because it would not exceed the City and SLOCOG projected 2040 population of 9,901 residents. For these reasons, overall air quality impacts for Alternative 2 would be reduced to a less than significant level due to the reduction in population growth that would ensure consistency with the 2001 CAP.
Biological Resources
Implementation of Alternative 2 would involve less overall disturbance due to the reduced residential buildout, which would cause a reduction in overall new development as well as a reduction in the estimated population growth that is associated with increased residential buildout under the GP/LCP Update. Under Alternative 2, goals and policies in the Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element would still minimize, and often avoid, impacts from potential direct and indirect effects to special status species and sensitive habitats, reduce impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat through preservation and enhancement of such habitats, reduce impacts to stream corridors, and protect wildlife movement corridors and open space, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Development under Alternative 2 would be required to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations to reduce potential impacts to biological resources. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to biological resources compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the overall reduction in new development. Impacts to biological resources under Alternative 2 would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in all residential land use, causing an overall reduction in new development as well as a reduction in the estimated population growth that is associated with increased residential buildout under the GP/LCP Update. As a result of reducing development, the ground disturbance and excavation that would be required for construction of the residential development envisioned in the GP/LCP Update would also be
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-14
reduced. Under Alternative 2, the goals, policies, and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update that would protect archaeological and historic resources would be implemented, and new development would be required to comply with federal and state regulations as well as the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, the goals, policies, and action measures in the GP/LCP Update would continue to protect valuable tribal cultural resources during the development of future projects. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in reduced potential impacts to archaeological, historic, and tribal resources compared to the GP/LCP Update as a result of the reduction in new residential development. Impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Energy
Compared to the GP/LCP Update, buildout of Alternative 2 would result in 555 fewer residential units and approximately 989 fewer residents. As a result, Alternative 2 would result in lower direct and indirect energy consumption. In addition, GP/LCP Update policies that would continue to be implemented under Alternative 2 would prevent inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development.
The total estimated citywide traffic growth through 2040 under Alternative 2 would be lower than the GP/LCP Update due to the reduction in residential development under this alternative. Because daily operation of the regional transportation system uses energy in the form of fuel consumed by propulsion of passenger and commercial vehicles, a reduction in total estimated citywide traffic growth would result in a reduction in overall energy consumption. Overall, the reduced potential for residential development and population growth anticipated under Alternative 2 would result in lower energy consumption than the GP/LCP Update. Energy impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Geology and Soils
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less residential development, causing a reduction in overall new development as well as a reduction in the estimated population growth that is associated with increased residential buildout under the GP/LCP Update. A reduction in new development under Alternative 2 would decrease overall construction activities such as stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving and other earth disturbing activities would reduce the potential for disturbance to paleontological resources. Under Alternative 2, the goals and policies in the existing Safety Element and proposed Conservation and Open Space Element would be implemented to minimize risks associated with potential fault rupture, seismic shaking, and other geologic hazards in the City, as well as reduce the potential of erosion and loss of topsoil, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
In addition, Alternative 2 would implement policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element related to protection of paleontological resources. Development under Alternative 2 would be required to comply with existing state and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in reduced potential impacts to geology and soils in comparison to the GP/LCP Update due to the
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-15
reduction in overall new development. Impacts related to geology and soils would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in less residential development, causing a reduction in overall new development as well as a reduction in the estimated population growth that is associated with increased residential buildout under the GP/LCP Update. Because less new development would be constructed under Alternative 2, construction-source GHG emissions would be reduced as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Compared to the GP/LCP Update, buildout of Alternative 2 would result in 555 fewer residential units and approximately 989 fewer residents. As a result, Alternative 2 would result in lower operational GHG emissions, including those due to VMT generation as compared to the GP/LCP Update. In addition, GP/LCP Update Land Use and Circulation Elements goals and policies that would promote mixed-use and compact development and support bike, pedestrian, and mass transit would continue to be implemented under Alternative
2. Similar to the GP/LCP Update, Alternative 2 would include updates to the Conservation and Open Space Element to include actions that require an update to the PBCAP to reflect the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets established by SB 32. Overall, Alternative 2 would reduce GHG and climate change impacts in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. GHG impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in all residential land use, causing an overall reduction in new development as well as a reduction in the estimated population growth that is associated with increased residential buildout under the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less ground disturbance than the GP/LCP Update. As a result, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced under Alternative 2. Implementation of both the GP/LCP Update and Alternative 2 would focus on infill development, and neither would facilitate growth in currently undeveloped areas where large tracts of vegetation cover are present nearby. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have a similar risk of wildfire as compared to the GP/LCP Update.
The goals and policies in the existing Safety Element that would minimize impacts related to the use, storage, transport, and release of hazardous materials in the City; direct the City to develop and maintain a multi-hazard emergency response plan; update plans and agreements with other agencies; and regulate use, location, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would continue to be implemented under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would require compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials and would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in reduced potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-16
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in residential development, causing an overall reduction in new development as well as a reduction in the estimated population growth that is associated with increased residential buildout under the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less development and less ground disturbance than the GP/LCP Update. As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be reduced under Alternative 2. The goals and policies in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element, and Land Use Element , and existing Safety Element that would reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction activities; reduce the potential for hydrology and water quality impacts during operation of new development or redevelopment; address bluff erosion; reduce discharge of additional stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from new development and redevelopment; provide direction for groundwater management; and reduce the risk of pollutant release in areas of flood hazard by restricting development within the 100-year floodplain would continue to be implemented under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would also require compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Pismo Beach Municipal Code, which would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in reduced potential impacts to hydrology and water quality compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Land Use and Planning
Based on the buildout capacity of the City under the GP/LCP Update, new growth would likely involve increased development density in developed areas or redevelopment of existing developed parcels. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in development density due to the reduction residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update. However, Alternative 2 would still provide for orderly development in Pismo Beach, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Alternative 2 would not physically divide an established community or conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with applicable regional land use plans, policies, and regulations, such as the SLOCOG 2019 RTP and City zoning districts and standards.
Because Alternative 2 would result in fewer residential units in Pismo Beach, it would be less consistent with the SLOCOG 2019 RTP, which promotes efforts to increase the supply and variety of housing and jobs in locations that reduce trips, travel distances, and congestion on U.S. Route 101.
However, overall, land use impacts would be similar to the GP/LCP Update and would remain less than significant.
Noise
Alternative 2 would result in reduced residential development and fewer residential units than under the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in reduced construction-related noise and vibration impacts as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Because Alternative 2 would reduce the maximum residential buildout that would occur within the 2040 planning horizon by 50 percent for all residential land use designations, the long-term operational and traffic noise would also be reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, overall noise impacts under Alternative 2 would be reduced compared to impacts under the GP/LCP Update due to the
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-17
reduction in residential development. Noise impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Population and Housing
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in reduced residential development, ultimately resulting in the construction of 555 fewer residential units than under the GP/LCP Update.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would involve less population growth in the City than would occur under the GP/LCP Update, and Alternative 2 would be consistent with the SLOCOG population growth projections for the city. However, a reduced residential buildout scenario would not meet the GP/LCP Update objective to ensure the City’s land use plan would meet the City’s fair share housing needs allocation established in SLOCOG’s RHNP (discussed in detail in Section 4.12, Population and Housing). In addition, growth in Pismo Beach under Alternative 2 would still be required to be consistent with the City of Pismo Beach Housing Element, adopted in 2020. Neither Alternative 2 nor the GP/LCP Update would displace substantial numbers of people or housing. Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be similar to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 2 would involve less overall development and associated growth than would occur under the GP/LCP Update. Nevertheless, full buildout of Alternative 2 would still result in an increase in Pismo Beach residents from the estimated 2019 city population, resulting in an incremental increase in demand for public services and recreational facilities, similar to buildout facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. Both implementation of Alternative 2 and implementation of the GP/LCP Update would achieve the standard of three acres to 1,000 residents, pursuant to the Quimby Act. Both Alternative 2 and the GP/LCP Update would include policies that would ensure public services continue to be provided to the city commensurate with population growth and need.
In addition, project-level development under Alternative 2 would be required to pay City-required public facilities impact fees. Overall, impacts related to public services and recreation would be reduced in comparison to the GP/LCP Update due to the reduction in new development potential.
Impacts related to public services and recreation would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Transportation
When compared to the GP/LCP Update, the maximum residential buildout that would occur within the 2040 planning horizon under Alternative 2 is assumed to be reduced by 50 percent for all residential land use designations. As a result, this alternative would accommodate approximately 555 fewer residential units and 990 fewer residents compared to the GP/LCP Update. The anticipated increase in VMT associated with buildout of the proposed GP/LCP Update is attributable to the increase in Pismo Beach residents associated with new residential growth under the GP/LCP Update. The reduced residential buildout scenario under Alternative 2 would reduce overall new development in the City as well as the estimated population growth associated with increased residential buildout, resulting in a corresponding decrease in vehicle trip generation as compared to the GP/LCP update. However, because Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, the reduction in vehicle trip generation related to the reduced residential buildout scenario would exacerbate the existing jobs-housing imbalance, increasing per-capita VMT.
Overall, as a result of the reduction in development under Alternative 2, project-level and
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-18
cumulative transportation impacts would not be substantially reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update, and would still increase beyond the existing 2019 condition. According to the California Office of Research and Planning, any increase in regional VMT over existing conditions is considered a significant and unavoidable impact (OPR 2018). Therefore, transportation impacts under Alternative 2 would similar compared to the GP/LCP Update, and the anticipated increase in per- capita and regional VMT as compared to existing conditions would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Utilities/Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.14, Utilities/Service Systems, the GP/LCP Update’s potential impacts related to the provision of utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Because Alternative 2 would involve less overall development and associated growth than would occur under the GP/LCP Update, the demand for utility infrastructure and services would be reduced.
Therefore, impacts would be reduced in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to utilities and service systems would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
6.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Commercial Floor Area Ratio
6.2.3.1 Description
Under the Reduced Commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Alternative, the maximum allowable FAR for new Commercial land use designations would be reduced from 2.0 to 1.5 and new Central Commercial land use designations would be reduced from 1.25 to 1.0 to reduce commercial density.
Because Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, reducing visitor- serving commercial density is expected to reduce the estimate of overall vehicle miles traveled in the regional traffic model. Approximately 85 percent of the potential new non-residential development identified in Table 2-6 of this EIR is comprised of Commercial and Central Commercial land uses (approximately 420,000 square feet of Commercial and approximately 250,000 square feet of Central Commercial), with the remaining 15% being comprised of mixed-use and public/semi-public land uses. Development under Alternative 3 assumes that all goals and policies put in place by the GP/LCP Update will be in force.
Under Alternative 3, approximately 630,000 square feet of new non-residential development could be constructed in the City limits (as compared to approximately 780,000 square feet of new non- residential development under the proposed GP/LCP Update). This would be a reduction in new commercial development potential of approximately 150,000 square feet as compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. A comparison of the development that could occur under Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update is provided in Table 6-1.
6.2.3.2 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less commercial and visitor-serving development than under the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, the existing visual character of Pismo Beach would be altered less under Alternative 3 in comparison to the GP/LCP Update because commercial development density would be reduced. Potential impacts associated with scenic resources and visual character would also be reduced in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, because less new commercial development would be developed under Alternative 3, fewer new sources of
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-19
light and glare would be created under this alternative. Overall, Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts to aesthetic resources as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Aesthetic impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Air Quality
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less commercial and visitor-serving development than under the GP/LCP Update. However, Alternative 3 would not reduce the amount of growth in population in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 because this alternative would not result in a reduction in residential development. Overall, construction-related emissions of air pollutants would be reduced under Alternative 3 as compared to the GP/LCP Update because the amount of non-residential development would be reduced. Similarly, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in a reduced amount of long-term operational emissions from use of natural gas for heating and water heating due to a reduction in non-residential development.
Because Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, reducing visitor- serving commercial density is expected to reduce the estimate of overall vehicle miles traveled in the regional traffic model, resulting in lower total VMT. Alternative 3 would continue to implement policies that would maintain and improve local air quality through local actions and interagency coordination; minimize adverse effects associated with criteria pollutants and TACs; promote compact development and reduce VMT; and address potential odor conflicts between future land uses in Pismo Beach. Alternative 3 would also implement policies that would reduce mobile source emissions by promoting mixed-use and infill development and supporting bike, pedestrian, and mass transit. The majority of air quality emissions are from mobile sources. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be less under Alternative 3 than under the GP/LCP Update due to the reduced total VMT. However, Alternative 3 would not be consistent with the 2001 CAP because it would exceed the City and SLOCOG projected 2040 population of 9,901 residents, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, air quality impacts for Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the overall reduction in commercial and visitor-serving development that would reduce total VMT. However, air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to inconsistencies with the 2001 CAP, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Biological Resources
Implementation of Alternative 3 would encourage infill development and redevelopment in vacant and underutilized parcels, but with a reduction in the commercial FAR. However, a reduction in the commercial FAR would not necessarily reduce the footprints of future development projects as compared to the commercial FAR proposed under the GP/LCP Update, because FARs take into account a building’s total floor area (including the floor area of each story of a building), not just the footprint of the building. Future development in the city under Alternative 3 could involve a reduction in new commercial development by approximately 150,000 square feet as compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Nonetheless, because most future development in the city under both Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update would involve infill development or redevelopment in already urbanized areas that may have been previously disturbed, and because population growth would be similar as compared to the GP/LCP Update, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to biological resources compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to biological resources would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-20
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of Alternative 3 would encourage infill development and redevelopment in vacant and underutilized parcels, but with a reduction in the commercial FAR. As stated above under Biological Resources for Alternative 3, a reduction in FAR would not necessarily reduce the footprints of future development projects as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Future development in the city under Alternative 3 could involve a reduction in new commercial development by approximately 150,000 square feet as compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update, which would result in reduced ground disturbance. Nonetheless, because most future development in the city under both Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update would involve infill development or redevelopment in already urbanized areas that may have been previously disturbed, and because population growth would be similar as compared to the GP/LCP Update, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to archaeological, historic, and tribal resources compared to the GP/LCP Update.
Under Alternative 3, the goals, policies, and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update that would protect archaeological and historic resources would be implemented, and new development would be required to comply with federal and state regulations as well as the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, the goals, policies, and action measures in the GP/LCP Update would continue to protect valuable tribal cultural resources during the development of future projects under Alternative 3. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in similar potential impacts to archaeological historic, and tribal resources compared to the GP/LCP Update.
Impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Energy
Buildout of Alternative 3 would result in in less commercial and visitor-serving development than under the GP/LCP Update, resulting in a reduction of approximately 150,000 square feet in new commercial development potential as compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. However, implementation of Alternative 3 would not reduce the residential development potential or population growth compared to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in reduced direct and indirect energy consumption as compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the reduction in non-residential development. Additionally, because Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, reducing visitor-serving commercial density is expected to reduce the estimate of overall vehicle miles traveled in the regional traffic model, resulting in a reduction in total estimated citywide traffic growth through 2040 under Alternative 3 than the GP/LCP Update.
Because daily operation of the regional transportation system uses energy in the form of fuel consumed by propulsion of passenger and commercial vehicles, a reduction in total estimated citywide traffic growth would result in a reduction in overall energy consumption.
Alternative 3 would continue to implement Land Use, Circulation, and Conservation and Open Space Element goals and policies that would prevent inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in lower energy consumption than the GP/LCP Update. Energy impacts would be less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-21
Geology and Soils
Alternative 3 would encourage infill development and redevelopment in vacant and underutilized parcels, but with a reduction in the commercial FAR. As stated above under Biological Resources for Alternative 3, a reduction in FAR would not necessarily reduce footprints of future development projects as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a similar amount of ground disturbance as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Similarly, because most future development in the city under both Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update would involve infill development or redevelopment in already urbanized areas that may have been previously disturbed, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts related to geology and soils, including paleontological resources. The goals and policies in the existing Safety Element and Conservation and Open Space Element that would minimize risks associated with potential fault rupture, seismic shaking, and other geologic hazards in the City, as well as reduce the potential of erosion and loss of topsoil, would continue to be implemented under Alternative 3. In addition, Alternative 3 would implement policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element related to protection of paleontological resources. In addition, Alternative 3 would require compliance with existing state and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development, which would reduce potential impacts. Overall, impacts to geology and soils under Alternative 3 would be similar to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to geology and soils would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less commercial and visitor-serving development than under the GP/LCP Update. Because less new non-residential development would be constructed under Alternative 3, construction-source GHG emissions would be reduced as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Compared to the GP/LCP Update, buildout of Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in new commercial development by approximately 150,000 square feet as compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, meaning a reduction in visitor-serving commercial density is expected to reduce the estimate of overall vehicle miles traveled in the regional traffic model. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in lower operational GHG emissions, including those due to VMT generation, as compared to the GP/LCP Update. In addition, GP/LCP Update Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, and Circulation Elements goals and policies that would promote mixed-use and compact development and support bike, pedestrian, and mass transit would continue to be implemented under Alternative 3. Similar to the GP/LCP Update, Alternative 3 would include updates to the Conservation and Open Space Element to include actions that require an update to the PBCAP to reflect the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets established by SB
32. Overall, Alternative 3 would reduce GHG and climate change impacts in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. GHG impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Alternative 3 would encourage infill development and redevelopment in vacant and underutilized parcels, but with a reduction in the commercial FAR. As stated above, a reduction in FAR would not necessarily reduce footprints of future development projects as compared to the GP/LCP Update.
Therefore, future development in the city under Alternative 3 would result in a similar amount of ground disturbance as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Similarly, because most future development in the city under both Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update would involve infill
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-22
development or redevelopment in already urbanized areas that may have been previously disturbed, and because population growth would be similar as compared to the GP/LCP Update, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. In addition, the focus on infill development under both Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update would not facilitate growth in currently undeveloped areas where large tracts of vegetation cover are present nearby.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a similar risk of wildfire as compared to the GP/LCP Update.
The goals and policies in the existing Safety Element that would minimize impacts related to the use, storage, transport, and release of hazardous materials in the City; direct the City to develop and maintain a multi-hazard emergency response plan; update plans and agreements with other agencies; and regulate use, location, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would continue to be implemented under Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would also require compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials and would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire would be similar under Alternative 3 as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 3 would encourage infill development and redevelopment in vacant and underutilized parcels in already urbanized areas of Pismo Beach, but with a reduction in the commercial FAR. As stated above under Biological Resources for Alternative 3, a reduction in FAR would not necessarily reduce footprints of future development projects as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, future development in the city under Alternative 3 would result in a similar amount of ground disturbance as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, because most future development in the city under both Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update would involve infill development or redevelopment in already urbanized areas that may have been previously disturbed, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The goals and policies in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element, and Land Use Element, and existing Safety Element that would reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction activities; reduce the potential for hydrology and water quality impacts during operation of new development or redevelopment; address bluff erosion; reduce discharge of additional stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from new development and redevelopment; provide direction for groundwater management; and, reduce the risk of pollutant release in areas of flood hazard by restricting development within the 100-year floodplain would continue to be implemented under Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would also require compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Pismo Beach Municipal Code, which would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Overall, impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Alternative 3 would be similar to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-23
Land Use and Planning
Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in commercial and visitor-serving development as a result of reducing the commercial floor area ratio. However, similar to the GP/LCP Update, Alternative 3 would provide for orderly development in Pismo Beach. Alternative 3 would not divide an established community or conflict with an applicable habitation conservation plan, similar to the GP/LCP Update. As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with applicable regional land use plans, policies, and regulations, such as the SLOCOG 2019 RTP and City zoning districts and standards. Because Alternative 3 would result in the same number of new residential units and therefore would result in similar amount of population growth in Pismo Beach, this alternative would also be consistent with the SLOCOG 2019 RTP. Overall, land use impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to the GP/LCP Update, and would remain less than significant.
Noise
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less commercial and visitor-serving development than under the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in reduced construction- related noise and vibration impacts as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Because Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, reducing visitor-serving commercial density is expected to reduce the estimate of overall vehicle miles traveled in the regional traffic model. Therefore, the long-term operational and traffic noise would be reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, infill and redevelopment facilitated by the proposed GP/LCP Update would increase noise near existing sensitive receivers and place new sensitive receivers in areas with high noise levels. However, Alternative 3 would result in the same number of residential dwelling units and similar associated population growth as compared to the GP/LCP Update.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a similar number of sensitive uses as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, Alternative 3 would have reduced noise impacts compared to the GP/LCP Update. Noise impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Population and Housing
Alternative 3 would involve similar population growth in the city as compared to the GP/LCP Update. As shown in Table 4.12-5 (Section 4.11, Population and Housing), the anticipated population growth in Pismo Beach through 2040 under the GP/LCP Update is similar to but less than the SLOCOG population growth projections for the city. Alternative 3 would also be consistent with SLOCOG growth projections for the City, with similar growth anticipated under this alternative as compared to the GP/LCP Update. In addition, growth in Pismo Beach under Alternative 3 would be required to be consistent City of Pismo Beach Housing Element, adopted in 2020. Neither Alternative 3 nor the GP/LCP Update would displace substantial numbers of people or housing.
Therefore, impacts related to population and housing would be similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Impacts would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Public Services and Recreation
Alternative 3 would result in reduced commercial and visitor-serving development than under the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, development under Alternative 3 would result in an incremental increase in demand on public services and recreational facilities, but to a lesser extent than development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update because Alternative 3 would result fewer square feet of new non-residential development than under the GP/ LCP Update. However, Alternative 3 would
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-24
result in similar population growth as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Both Alternative 3 and the GP/LCP Update would include policies that would ensure public services continue to be provided to the city commensurate with population growth and need. In addition, project-level development under Alternative 3 would be required to pay City-required public facilities impact fees. Both implementation of Alternative 3 and implementation of the GP/LCP Update would achieve the standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, pursuant to the Quimby Act. Impacts related to public services and recreation under Alternative 3 would be similar in comparison to the GP/LCP Update, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Transportation
Alternative 3 would encourage infill development and redevelopment in vacant and underutilized parcels in already urbanized areas of Pismo Beach, but with a reduction in the commercial FAR.
Overall, Alternative 3 would result in reduced commercial and visitor-serving development than under the GP/LCP Update. Because Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, reducing visitor-serving and commercial density would reduce the overall VMT in the regional traffic model.
Alternative 3 would reduce the net increase in non-residential development through the year 2040 compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, under Alternative 3, citywide traffic growth through 2040 would be lower than growth anticipated under the GP/LCP Update. However, due to the anticipated growth in population through the year 2040 in Pismo Beach as compared to existing 2019 conditions, the reduction in non-residential development as compared to the GP/LCP Update would not reduce anticipated VMT below the existing 2019 condition. According to the California Office of Research and Planning, any increase in regional VMT over existing conditions is considered a significant and unavoidable impact (OPR 2018). Therefore, Alternative 3 would continue to result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts from the increase in VMT.
Overall, as a result of the reduction in non-residential development under Alternative 3, project- level and cumulative transportation impacts would be reduced compared to the GP/LCP Update.
However, the anticipated increase in local and regional VMT would remain significant and unavoidable.
Utilities/Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.14, Utilities, the GP/LCP Update’s potential impacts related to the provision of utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Implementation of Alternative 3 would encourage infill development and redevelopment in vacant and underutilized parcels, but with a reduction in the commercial FAR. However, a reduction in commercial FAR would not necessarily reduce the footprints of future development projects as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Development under Alternative 3 would result in similar population growth as compared to the GP/LCP Update. However, the reduction in non-residential development would reduce the overall demand for utilities and service systems in the City. Therefore, the demand for new or expanded utility infrastructure under Alternative 3 would be reduced as compared to the utility needs of development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. Overall, impacts related to the provision of utility infrastructure and services would be reduced in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to utilities and service systems would remain less than significant, similar to the General Plan and LCP Update.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-25
6.2.4 Alternative 4: Proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Update with Expanded Sphere of Influence
Development
6.2.4.1 Description
Under the Proposed GP/LCP Coastal Plan Update with Expanded SOI Development Alternative, the project area would include expanded development potential within the City’s SOI. The SOI includes land in Price Canyon and along Oak Park Boulevard and a small area along Mattie Road. The Price Canyon area of the SOI includes four parcels totaling approximately 1,100 acres. The Los Robles del Mar area of the SOI, west of Oak Park Boulevard, includes two separate parcels. One parcel is an approximately 152-acre ownership and the second site is an approximately 30-acre private school site. Future land use designations within the SOI are not specifically defined or included within the buildout assumptions of the proposed GP/LCP Update; therefore, this alternative assumes up to 10 percent of the City’s 1,282 acres of SOI area (128 acres) would be developed during the 2040 planning horizon with a mix of single- and multi-family residential land uses reflecting a mix of densities similar to existing residential development throughout the City.
Under Alternative 4 the City would annex portions of the SOI planned for urban land use development and provide municipal services. Up to 128 acres of new residential land use area in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas of the SOI would become available for development, which may accommodate approximately 1,800 new single- and multi-family residential units.
Assuming that new residential development in the SOI areas would be at a similar density to anticipated new residential development throughout the City, full buildout of Alternative 4 would result in a population increase of approximately 5,185 and a total City-wide population of up to 13,422 in 2040. This would be approximately 3,000 more residents compared to the year 2040 population under full implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update. Overall, Alternative 4 would increase the growth in population in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Due to the increase in overall growth, this alternative would also increase new vehicle traffic. Development under Alternative 4 assumes that all goals and policies put in place by the GP/LCP Update will be in force. A comparison of the development that could occur under Alternative 4 and the GP/LCP Update is provided in Table 6-1.
6.2.4.2 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in increased development as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Under this alternative, development would expand within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas, resulting in an increase in population growth in Pismo Beach by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Therefore, the existing scenic resources in, and visual character of, Pismo Beach would be altered more under Alternative 4 in comparison to the GP/LCP Update because residential development density would be increased in these areas, which are primarily undeveloped. Additionally, because more new residential development would be developed, more new sources of light and glare would be created under this alternative. Overall, Alternative 4 would have increased impacts to aesthetic resources as compared to the GP/LCP Update. However, implementation of the goals, policies, and actions outlined in the GP/LCP Update Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element would continue to minimize adverse effects, and aesthetic impacts would remain less than significant.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-26
Air Quality
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in increased development as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Under this alternative, development would expand within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas, resulting in an increase in population growth in Pismo Beach by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Full buildout of Alternative 4 would accommodate 13,422 total residents in Pismo Beach. This would be approximately 3,200 more residents than would be accommodated by full implementation of the GP/LCP Update, resulting in an increase in the long-term on-site emissions from use of natural gas for residential heating, cooking, and water heating would be increased compared to the GP/LCP Update.
Alternative 4 would continue to implement policies that would maintain and improve local air quality through local actions and interagency coordination; minimize adverse effects associated with criteria pollutants and TACs; promote compact development and reduce VMT; and address potential odor conflicts between future land uses in Pismo Beach. Alternative 4 would also implement policies that would reduce mobile source emissions by promoting mixed-use and infill development and supporting bike, pedestrian, and mass transit. However, due to the overall growth in population potential, Alternative 4 would increase citywide and regional traffic growth through 2040 as compared to the GP/LCP Update, increasing total VMT. Because the majority of air contaminant emissions are from mobile sources, overall air quality impacts would be increased under Alternative 4 compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the increase in total VMT. Additionally, Alternative 4 would not be consistent with the 2001 CAP because it would exceed the City and SLOCOG projected 2040 population of 9,901 residents, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, air quality impacts for Alternative 4 would be increased compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the overall increase in new development and population growth. Impacts to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable.
Biological Resources
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Under Alternative 4, goals and policies in the Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element would still minimize, and often avoid, impacts from potential direct and indirect effects to special status species and sensitive habitats, reduce impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat through preservation and enhancement of such habitats, reduce impacts to stream corridors, and protect wildlife movement corridors and open space, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Development under Alternative 4 would also be required to comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to reduce potential impacts to biological resources. However, Alternative 4 would result in an increase in population growth in Pismo Beach by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update and would expand city growth in undeveloped space, such as foothills and coastal cliffs, that currently support natural resources. Vegetative communities present within the undeveloped SOI, such as grassland, introduced annual and perennial growth, western oak woodland, western riparian woodland and shrubland, and chaparral, would be impacted under this alternative . Therefore, Alternative 4 would have increased impacts to biological resources as compared to the GP/LCP Update due to expanded development that would take place within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas. Impacts to biological resources would be significant and unavoidable.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-27
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Under Alternative 4, the goals, policies, and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update that would protect archaeological and historic resources and valuable tribal cultural resources would still be implemented, and new development would be required to comply with federal and state regulations as well as the City’s Municipal Code. However, Alternative 4 would result in expanded City growth in currently undeveloped space that could contain previously unidentified archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 4 could have increased impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources as compared to the GP/LCP Update due to expanded development that would take place within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas. Impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be significant and unavoidable.
Energy
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in additional residential development and an increase in population growth in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by approximately 30 percent compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in increased direct and indirect energy consumption as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Alternative 4 would increase the net growth in residential development through the year 2040 compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, citywide and regional traffic growth through 2040 would also be greater than the growth anticipated under the GP/LCP Update. Because daily operation of the regional transportation system uses energy in the form of fuel consumed by propulsion of passenger and commercial vehicles, an increase in total estimated citywide traffic growth would result in an increase in overall energy consumption.
Alternative 4 would continue to implement Land Use, Circulation, and Conservation and Open Space Element goals and policies that would prevent inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development; encourage infill and compact mixed-use development; encourage multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency; promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative transportation; prioritize upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation; and, promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Overall, Alternative 4 would result in increased energy consumption compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the increase in new development. However, energy impacts would be less than significant.
Geology and Soils
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Under Alternative 4, the goals and policies in the existing Safety Element and proposed Conservation and Open Space Element that would minimize risks associated with potential fault rupture, seismic shaking, and other geologic hazards in the City, as well as reduce the potential of erosion and loss of topsoil, would be implemented similar to the GP/LCP Update. Development under Alternative 4 would also be required to comply with existing state and federal regulatory requirements to avoid and minimize geology and soil hazards associated with new development. However, Alternative 4 would
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-28
result in an increase in development as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in increased ground disturbance, which would increase the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil. Additionally, an increase in ground disturbance in currently undisturbed areas could increase the potential for disturbance to paleontological resources. However, Alternative 4 would implement policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element related to protection of paleontological resources. Overall, Alternative 4 would have increased impacts to geology and soils as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts to geology and soils would remain less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in expanded City growth in currently undeveloped areas. Therefore, construction-source GHG emissions would be increased as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Compared to the GP/LCP Update, buildout of Alternative 4 would result in an increase in population growth by 30 percent. As a result, Alternative 4 would result in higher operational GHG emissions, including those due to VMT generation as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Alternative 4 would continue to implement Land Use and Circulation Elements goals and policies that would promote mixed-use and compact development and support bike, pedestrian, and mass transit. Additionally, Alternative 4 would include updates to the Conservation and Open Space Element to include actions that require an update to the PBCAP to reflect the Statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets established by SB 32. The updated PBCAP would include goals, policies, project-specific thresholds, and programs aimed at achieving GHG reduction targets and would demonstrate a clear trajectory towards meeting the reduction target in Executive Order S-3-05. Overall, Alternative 4 would increase GHG and climate change impacts in comparison to the GP/LCP Update. However, impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would remain less than significant, similar to the GP/LCP Update.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in expanded City growth in currently undeveloped areas. Therefore, potential ground disturbance, as well as impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, under Alternative 4 would be increased as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, expanded City growth in currently undeveloped areas where large tracts of vegetation cover are present nearby would result in an increased risk of wildfire as compared to the GP/LCP Update. The goals and policies in the existing Safety Element that would minimize impacts related to the use, storage, transport, and release of hazardous materials in the City; direct the City to develop and maintain a multi-hazard emergency response plan; update plans and agreements with other agencies; and regulate use, location, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would continue to be implemented under Alternative 4.
Alternative 4 would also require compliance with all applicable federal and State laws related to the storage of hazardous materials and would maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above), provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an accidental release occurs, and minimize risks from routine use, transport, handling, storage, disposal, and release of hazardous materials, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, impacts related to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire under Alternative 4 would be increased. Impacts to hazards, hazardous materials, and wildfire would remain less than significant.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-29
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Alternative 4 would result in City growth in currently undeveloped space, causing an overall increase in population growth in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 4 would increase the amount of construction activities for new development, which would result in more significant long-term alterations of existing drainage patterns, such as changes in ground surface permeability, and increased soil erosion due to new paving, earth-moving activities, and changes in topography that would result from excavation, cut and fill activities, and grading. As a result, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be increased under Alternative 4. Additionally, the increased development that would result from implementation of Alternative 4 would incrementally increase the amount of impervious surface in the City and increase water use, which could reduce the potential for groundwater recharge from infiltration and decrease groundwater supplies. However, the goals and policies in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element, and Land Use Element, and existing Safety Element that would reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction activities; reduce the potential for hydrology and water quality impacts during operation of new development or redevelopment; address bluff erosion; reduce discharge of additional stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from new development and redevelopment; provide direction for groundwater management; and, reduce the risk of pollutant release in areas of flood hazard by restricting development within the 100-year floodplain would continue to be implemented under Alternative 4. Similarly, compliance with goals and policies would ensure that new impervious surfaces and increased water use would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or decrease groundwater supplies. Alternative 4 would also require compliance with existing local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and policies, including the Pismo Beach Municipal Code and the Central Coast RWQCB’s post construction requirements for stormwater management, which would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, similar to the GP/LCP Update. Overall, impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Alternative 4 would be increased as compared to the GP/LCP Update, but impacts would remain less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in expanded City growth in currently undeveloped areas. Under Alternative 4, up to 128 acres of new residential land use area in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas of the SOI would become available for development, which could accommodate approximately 1,800 new single- and multi- family residential units. Alternative 4 would not divide an established community or conflict with an applicable habitation conservation plan. As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with applicable regional land use plans, policies, and regulations, such as the SLOCOG 2019 RTP and City zoning districts and standards. Implementation of Alternative 4 would improve opportunities for businesses and citizens to easily access goods, jobs, services, and housing, which is consistent with objectives in the SLOCOG 2019 RTP. However, implementation of Alternative 4 would not be consistent with other objectives in the SLOCOG 2019 RTP including goals to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles, improve air quality in the region, or conserve and protect natural, sensitive, and agricultural resources. Therefore, , this alternative would not be consistent with the SLOCOG 2019 RTP. Future development within SOI would be
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-30
annexed into the City in compliance with procedures identified by the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Therefore, Alternative 4 would be consistent with the applicable LAFCO policies, which would be confirmed through the LAFCO review process. Overall, land use impacts would be increased as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Impacts would remain less than significant.
Noise
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Alternative 4 would result in expanded City growth in currently undeveloped space, causing an overall increase in population growth in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in increased construction- related noise and vibration impacts in undeveloped areas that would not be developed under the GP/LCP Update. Due to the increase in overall growth, this alternative would also increase new vehicle traffic. Therefore, the long-term operational and traffic noise would also be increased compared to the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, expanded development within currently undeveloped space in the City’s SOI would create new sensitive receivers that would otherwise not be developed under the GP/LCP Update. However, compliance with existing municipal code standards and with the goals, policies, and actions that would continue to be implemented under Alternative 4 would ensure construction activity associated with new development would limit noise disturbance at noise-sensitive receivers in the City. Similarly, compliance with the municipal code standards and compliance with the updated goals, policies, and actions would reduce overall traffic noise, continue to regulate on-site noise, minimize disturbance to adjoining uses, and limit vibration disturbance. Overall, Alternative 4 would have increased noise impacts compared to the GP/LCP Update. Noise impacts would remain less than significant.
Population and Housing
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in an overall increase in population growth in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. As shown in Table 4.12-5 (Section 4.11, Population and Housing), the anticipated population growth in Pismo Beach through 2040 under the GP/LCP Update is similar to but less than the SLOCOG population growth projections for the city.
Alternative 4 would increase the growth anticipated under the GP/LCP Update by 30 percent, resulting in an increase in population by approximately 3,200 compared to the GP/LCP Update.
Overall, this alternative would exceed the SLOCOG population growth projects for the City by 2,548 residents. Therefore, Alternative 4 would induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City’s SOI and would be inconsistent with SLOCOG growth projections for the city. Growth in Pismo Beach under Alternative 4 would be required to be consistent City of Pismo Beach Housing Element, which would require the City to update the Housing Element to be consistent with the planned growth envisioned under this alternative. Neither Alternative 4 nor the GP/LCP Update would displace substantial numbers of people or housing. Overall, impacts related to population and housing under Alternative 4 would be increased as compared to the GP/LCP Update due to the resulting population increase that would exceed SLOCOG population growth forecasts. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-31
Public Services and Recreation
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in an overall increase in population growth in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Therefore, development under Alternative 4 would result in an incremental increase in demand on public services and recreational facilities to a greater extent than development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. Both Alternative 4 and the GP/LCP Update would include policies that would ensure public services continue to be provided to the city commensurate with population growth and need. As part of the annexation process, LAFCO would conduct a municipal service review to ensure that sufficient public services are available to the new development with the SOI. In addition, project-level development under Alternative 4 would be required to pay City-required public facilities impact fees. Similar to the GP/LCP Update, Act, new development would have to pay Quimby fees or include park facilities in order for the City to maintain the standard of three acres to 1,000 residents, pursuant to the Quimby Act . Overall, impacts related to public services and recreation under Alternative 4 would be increased in comparison to the GP/LCP Update due to the increase in new development. Impacts would remain less than significant.
Transportation
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas as compared to the GP/LCP Update, resulting in an overall increase in population growth in Pismo Beach through the year 2040 by approximately 30 percent compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Additionally, Alternative 4 may accommodate approximately 1,800 new single- and multi-family residential units in Pismo Beach. Assuming that new residential development in the SOI areas would be at a similar density to anticipated new residential development throughout the City, full buildout of Alternative 4 would result in a population increase 3,200 residents compared to the year 2040 population under full implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update. Therefore, under Alternative 4, the anticipated increase in citywide and regional traffic through 2040 would be greater than the increase in citywide and regional traffic anticipated under the GP/LCP Update. Additionally, Alternative 4 would continue to result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts from new VMT.
Overall, as a result of the increase in residential development and population growth under Alternative 4, project-level and cumulative transportation impacts would be increased compared to the GP/LCP Update. Transportation impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Utilities/Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.14, Utilities/Service Systems, the GP/LCP Update’s potential impacts related to the provision of utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Because Alternative 4 would result in expanded development within the City’s SOI in the Price Canyon and Los Robles del Mar areas, population growth in Pismo Beach would increase by approximately 30 percent through the year 2040 as compared to the proposed GP/LCP Update. Alternative 4 would also result in expanded city growth in currently undeveloped space, creating a demand for infrastructure and utility service in new locations. Therefore, the demand for new or expanded utility infrastructure under Alternative 4 would be greater than the utility needs of development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. However, Alternative 4 would continue to implement a series of major strategies to ensure a sustainable water supply that would support economic development,
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-32
land use changes, and development in the City through 2040. Specifically, the existing Facilities Element and proposed Land Use Element would contain goals and policies that are consistent with the purpose of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan to encourage the sustainable use and management of water supplies and infrastructure in the City. As part of the annexation process, LAFCO would conduct a municipal service review to ensure that sufficient municipal services are available to the new development within the SOI. Additionally, impact fees on new development would ensure that the wastewater collection system within the City receives necessary upgrades to accommodate the additional population. However, the potential demand for new utility infrastructure resulting from the overall increase in new development under Alternative 4 could result in new physical disturbance and increased environmental impacts. As a result, impacts related to the provision of utility infrastructure and services would be increased, and could be potentially significant.
6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an analysis of project alternatives identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the project site and its surrounding environment. In some cases, an alternative will avoid one or more impacts identified for a project but introduce other new significant impacts. Therefore, selection of the environmentally superior alternative requires an overall assessment of the changes in the number and type of significant impacts.
This section evaluates the impact conclusions for the GP/LCP Update and the four alternatives under consideration. It then identifies the environmentally superior alternative for each issue area. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, if the No Project Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Table 6-3 summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed project and the analyzed alternatives.
In conducting the alternatives analysis, consideration must be given as to how, and to what extent, an alternative can meet the project’s basic objectives. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the primary objective of the GP/LCP Update is to function as a policy document to guide land use decisions within the City through the year 2040.
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-33
Table 6-3 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:
No Project/Continue
Using 1992 GP/LCP
Alternative 2:
Reduced Residential
Buildout
Alternative 3:
Reduced Commercial
Floor Area Ratio
Alternative 4:
Proposed GP/LCP Update with
Expanded SOI Development
Major Topics
(EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts)
Air Quality
(Inconsistency with 2001 CAP
and Cumulative)
Significant and
Unavoidable
Less
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Greater (Significant and
Unavoidable)
Transportation (Increased VMT
and Cumulative)
Significant and
Unavoidable
Less
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Similar
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Less
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Greater (Significant and
Unavoidable)
Other Environmental Topics
(EIR identifies impacts that are less than significant with or without mitigation) Aesthetics Less than Significant Less Less Less Greater (Less than Significant)
Biological Resources Less than Significant Less Less Similar Greater (Significant and Unavoidable)
Cultural/Tribal Resources Less than Significant Less Less Similar Greater (Significant and Unavoidable)
Energy Less than Significant Less Less Less Greater
(Less than Significant)
Geology and Soils Less than Significant Less Less Similar Greater (Less than Significant)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant Greater (Significant and
Unavoidable)
Less Less Greater
(Less than Significant)
Hazards, Hazardous Materials,
and Wildfire
Less than Significant Less Less Similar Greater
(Less than Significant)
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Less Less Similar Greater (Less than Significant)
Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Greater
(Less than Significant)
Similar Similar Greater
(Less than Significant)
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-34
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:
No Project/Continue
Using 1992 GP/LCP
Alternative 2:
Reduced Residential
Buildout
Alternative 3:
Reduced Commercial
Floor Area Ratio
Alternative 4:
Proposed GP/LCP Update with
Expanded SOI Development
Noise Less than Significant Less Less Less Greater
(Less than Significant)
Population and Housing Less than Significant Similar Similar Similar Greater (Significant and Unavoidable)
Public Services and Recreation Less than Significant Less Less Similar Greater (Less than Significant)
Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Less Less Less Greater (Significant and Unavoidable)
Overall 12 Less,
1 Similar,
2 Greater
12 Less,
3 Similar,
0 Greater
7 Less,
8 Similar,
0 Greater
0 Less,
0 Similar,
17 Greater
Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-35
The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) would continue implementation of the existing 1992 GP/LCP, which would accommodate less residential development and associated population growth than the GP/LCP Update but would result in an increase in non-residential development and associated jobs growth as compared to the GP/LCP Update. Although Alternative 1 would entail continued growth as dictated by the existing 1992 General Plan, this alternative would not implement new policy language included in the GP/LCP Update, such as policies intended to provide guidance for future development and reduce long-term community impacts associated with growth.
Alternative 1 would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality because it would result in less population growth and associated new vehicle traffic and would therefore be more consistent with the assumptions in the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Alternative 1 would also reduce project- level and cumulative impacts associated with increased VMT, but transportation impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Finally, Alternative 1 would result in increased impacts to greenhouse gases and land use and planning. Impacts related to land use would remain less than significant; however, impacts related to greenhouse gases may be potentially significant due to inconsistency with the PBCAP.
Alternative 2, Proposed GP/LCP Update with Reduced Residential Buildout, would perform similar to or better than the GP/LCP Update for all environmental resource areas. This alternative would result in a 50 percent reduction in overall residential land use designations in Pismo Beach, resulting in a reduction in overall population growth through 2040. As a result of this reduction in future development and growth, Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to issue areas including aesthetic resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions, geology, energy, hazards, hydrology, noise, public services, and utilities. Alternative 2 would reduce project- level and cumulative impacts to air quality to a less than significant level due to the overall reduction in residential development that would result in consistency with the 2001 CAP and a reduction in total VMT. However, Alternative 2 would still result in local and regional VMT growth.
Therefore, project-level and cumulative transportation impacts under Alternative 2 would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 3, the Reduced Commercial Floor Area Ratio Alternative, would also perform similar or better to the GP/LCP Update for all environmental resource areas. This alternative would result in less new commercial and visitor-serving development due to the reduction in commercial FAR.
However, Alternative 3 would not result in a reduction in residential development or potential population growth. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in reduced impacts to issue areas including aesthetic resources, GHG emissions, noise, and energy. However, because population growth under Alternative 3 would be similar to the population growth under implementation of the GP/LCP Update, Alternative 3 would not eliminate the project-level and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality and transportation.
Alternative 4, Proposed GP/LCP Update with Expanded SOI Development, would perform worse than the GP/LCP Update for all environmental resource areas. This alternative would result in an increase in overall development in currently undeveloped space within the City’s SOI. Therefore, overall population growth would be greater under this alternative and would contribute to the project-level and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality and transportation. Alternative 4 would result in increased impacts to greenhouse gases, which could potentially be significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 4 would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, population and housing, and utilities and service systems.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
6-36
Based on the information presented herein, Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative when considering overall environmental impacts. Alternative 2 would reduce project- level and cumulative impacts to air quality to a less than significant level but would not avoid the significant and unavoidable project-level or cumulative transportation impacts. However, reducing the overall residential development in Pismo Beach would be inconsistent with the objective of the GP/LCP Update to ensure that the City’s land use plan meets the fair share housing needs allocation established in the SLOCOG RHNP. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the basic project objective to manage growth in Pismo Beach.
After Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is the next most environmentally superior alternative when considering overall environmental impacts relative to the performance metrics. However, reducing visitor-serving commercial density under this alternative would be inconsistent with Pismo Beach’s community vision to enhance a vibrant tourist-based economy and guiding principle to support the visitor population. Additionally, Alternative 3 would not avoid the significant and unavoidable project-level or cumulative air quality and transportation impacts associated with the population growth and increased VMT that would be expected under this alternative.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 Responses to Comments
7.1 Introduction
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update (GP/LCP Update) was circulated for a 45-day public review period from February 1, 2022, to March 18, 2022. The Planning Commission hearings for the Final EIR were held on July 25 and August 22, 2023. The City Council hearing for the Final EIR was scheduled for October 2023.
However, prior to the City Council hearing, the City determined that the Safey Element would also be removed from the GP/LCP Update. The City opted to prepare a Recirculated Draft EIR to address changes to the GP/LCP Update following the closure of the 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR in March 2022. The Recirculated Draft EIR was released for a 62-day public review period between December 11, 2025, and February 11, 2026. This section includes responses to comments received on both the Draft EIR circulated in 2022 and the Recirculated Draft EIR circulated in 2025.
In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City reviewed written comments received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR and prepared written responses to the written comments received during the public review period.
7.2 Public Comments Received
As summarized in Table 7-1, comment letters were submitted by public agencies and one member of the public. The comment letters are provided in Appendix I and responses are provided below.
The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1-1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1).
Table 7-1 Public Comments Received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR Letter No. and Commenter Date Received
1 Kevin Pearce, California Department of Parks and Recreation February 14, 2022 2 Kelsie Shroll, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians February 17, 2022 3 Jenna Schudson, California Department of Transportation March 18, 2022 4 William Graulty, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services December 15, 2025 5 Julie Vance, California Department of Fish and Wildlife February 9, 2026 6 Andrew Grow February 11, 2026
7 Roger Jacobs, California Department of Parks and Recreation January 5, 2024
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-2
7.3 Response to Comments
Any changes made to the text within the Final EIR correcting information, data, or intent, other than minor typographical corrections or minor working changes, are noted in the Final EIR as changes from the Recirculated Draft EIR. The changes that occurred between the Recirculated Draft EIR and Final EIR are shown in underline for text additions and strikethrough for text deletions. Minor changes were made to the document based on the comments received from the public. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate a Draft EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR prior to certification. The revisions to the Final EIR do not constitute “significant new information” because they do not result in a new avoidable significant effect, do not substantially increase the severity of any environmental impacts, do not identify a feasible project alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed, and do not involve new mitigation measures or substantial revisions to mitigation measures that were proposed in the Draft EIR or Recirculated Draft EIR. Because these revisions do not constitute significant new information, recirculation of the EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Responses to public comments received were prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the EIR addressed pertinent environmental issues. The focus of the responses to comments is the disposition of environmental issues that are raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c). Detailed responses are not provided to comments on the merits of the proposed project. However, when a comment is not directed to an environmental issue, the response indicates that the comment has been noted and forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-3
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Kevin Pearce, California Department of Parks and Recreation DATE: February 14, 2022
Response 1-1
The commenter states that the Department of Parks and Recreation, Oceano Dunes District, is a landowner of Pismo State Beach. This includes a parking lot at the western terminus of Addie Street, North Beach (NB) campground, Pismo Lake, the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, and approximately 8 miles of state beach, of which the City of Pismo Beach manages approximately 1.25 miles through a Lease Agreement with the state.
This comment is introductory and provides a summary of the Department of Parks and Recreation.
The comment is noted for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 1-2
The commenter states that Pismo Lake, NB campground, and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove are designated by the City as Open Space. The commenter notes that the State may want to improve and develop these areas in the future for visitor services, public access, and natural resource protection and would like to ensure such improvements would not be inconsistent with the requirements of the Open Space designation. The commenter recommends the City review this land use designation to ensure compatibility with the state’s existing and future recreational improvements.
The City’s Open Space land use designation is intended for areas with important natural resources, environmentally sensitive habitats, and scenic views to be protected and used for recreational uses where compatible with the characteristics of such areas. The Open Space designation does not preclude compatible recreational improvements.
Response 1-3
The commenter states Pismo Coast Village RV Resort (PCV) and NB campground operate campgrounds to support a recreational vehicle (RV) camping experience, and notes that PCV is designated as Resort Commercial and NB campground is designated as Open Space. Given the developed, recreational use of NB campground, the commenter recommends the City consider a Resort Commercial land use and Commercial Recreation zoning designation.
In comparison to NB campground, PCV is a more intensified camping experience, catering primarily to RVs, and contains an accessory retail/commercial use and is therefore designated as Resort Commercial. The Open Space designation on the NB campground is appropriate because NB campground does not contain utility hookups or a commercial component, and NB campground is intended for a more rustic camping experience than PCV.
Response 1-4
The commenter recommends the City remove Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA) from the environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) designations because ODSVRA is not in a City General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) responsibility area. Correspondingly, the
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-4
commenter recommends removing reference to the ODSVRA from the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area description and proposed Action COS-3.2a.
While the ODSVRA is not within the City GP/LCP Update area, the ODSVRA and other surrounding uses are referenced in the GP/LCP Update and EIR to provide context to the reader and for coordinated planning for any land use changes in the immediate vicinity of surrounding/nearby uses. To clarify that ODSVRA is not located within the City limits, setting information in Sections
3.2.4 and 4.3.1.c and Impact BIO-1 in Section 4.3.3.c were revised in the Recirculated Draft EIR to generally refer to dunes habitat of Pismo State Beach, but not explicitly state ODSVRA.
Corresponding changes were made to related GP/LCP Update policies. No further changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-5
The commenter recommends the City consult with the state on any planned improvements to state property within the GP/LCP Project area (i.e., Addie Street). Correspondingly, the commenter recommends this change to the Draft Circulation Element Policies CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40, as well as Draft Conservation and Open Space Element Action COS-1.1c.
Circulation Element Policies CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40 have been renumbered to CE-3.6 and CE-7.6, respectively. The following language has been revised in Section 5, Conservation Areas, of the 2026 Public Review Draft Conservation and Open Space Element:
Pismo Beach contains important conservation areas, or areas within the community that contain a large number of diverse plant and animal species. These areas include the ocean and shoreline habitats, butterfly groves, riparian and wetland habitats, and foothills. These conservation areas vary in plant and animal communities, location, ownership, and use and jurisdictional requirements. The City will make best efforts to consult with applicable agencies including the State Parks Department on any planned improvements to state property within the General Plan / Local Coastal Program project area, including those portions of Pismo State Beach, operated by the City under a lease agreement. In addition, many of these conservation areas are designated as environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and some of the areas, such as Pismo Marsh and Pismo Creek, are wetlands.
No changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-6
The commenter requests that the City include Western snowy plover in the Special Status Wildlife Species, Appendix G, Table G-2 of the EIR.
Appendix G of the Draft EIR has been designated as Appendix D within the Final EIR. The western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) has been added to Table D-2, Special Status Wildlife Species Documented in or with the Potential to Occur in Pismo Beach, in Appendix D of the EIR as follows:
Scientific Name Common Name
FESA/CESA
Status
Other CDFW &
Local Status
Birds
Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover FT/– SSC
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-5
The analysis in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, considered potential impacts to sensitive bird species, including shorebirds. The addition of western snowy plover to Table D-2 in Appendix D of the EIR does not change the analysis or conclusions in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the EIR.
Response 1-7
The commenter describes the importance of protecting significant natural and cultural resources and will manage and/or design any state projects on state lands consistent with state rules, regulations, and policies. The commenter refers to additional comments regarding Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, wetland and stream resources, and buffers in Comment #11 of their letter.
This comment is noted. The response to Comment #11 of the letter is addressed in Response 1-12 below.
Response 1-8
The commenter notes that the State is continuing to pursue a final Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Oceano Dunes District, including portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City under a Lease Agreement. The commenter states that once the HCP is approved, all portions of Pismo State Beach must comply with HCP conditions.
The City will comply with all applicable conditions for Pismo State Beach required by the HCP for the property.
Response 1-9
The commenter requests any proposed projects on the portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City under a Lease Agreement be discussed in advance with the state to meet state policies, rules, and regulations for sensitive tribal and cultural resources. The commenter also requests notification of any proposed projects on City property that have potential to impact known cultural resources with boundaries that abut and/or overlap with state property.
The City will consult with the Department of Parks and Recreation on any planned improvements to state property within the City and will follow all applicable laws regarding cultural resources notifications.
Response 1-10
The commenter recommends that environmental and planning documents do not contain information about the location of Native American archaeological resources, sacred sites, or other tribal and cultural resources. The commenter recommends all archaeological or other cultural resources be considered important or significant until formal evaluation for California Register of Historical Resources and/or National Register of Historic Places occurs and indicates otherwise.
It is the City’s practice not to disclose information regarding the specific location of archeological, tribal, cultural, or paleontological resources. As stated in the discussion of project impacts in Section 4.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, in the EIR, the goals, policies, and actions included in the proposed Conservation and Open Space Element are intended to preserve and protect cultural and historic resources. Additionally, future development under the GP/LCP Update would be subject on a project-by-project basis to the provisions of all applicable federal and state historic resource regulations, as well as the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.24.020, which sets property development and use standards related to archaeological and historical resources.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-6
Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be required to comply with GP/LCP actions, federal and state regulations, and the City’s Municipal Code which would require identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural and historic resources throughout the city. More specifically, Action COS-5.1a in the proposed Conservation and Open Space Element requires, as part of the CEQA review process, that a professional, qualified historian conduct a literature search and/or survey for any project that entails demolition or modification of an existing structure that may be of historical value in relation to the City’s cultural heritage. Sites of statewide or national significance shall be nominated for inclusion in the Registry of California Historic Landmarks or National Historic Landmark Program.
Response 1-11
The commenter requests any proposed projects on the portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City be discussed in advance with the state to meet state policies, rules, and regulations related to sea level rise. The commenter requests that the City consider the development limitations proposed under Safety Element Actions S-2.5b, S-2.5c, and S-2.5d to ensure the proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain and improve existing State Parks recreational and operational facilities within the City as provided for in proposed Action LU-4.2l: Maintenance of Campgrounds and RV Parks.
The Safety Element is not being updated as part of the GP/LCP Update. Accordingly, the actions the commenter references are no longer applicable.
Response 1-12
The commenter provides the same comment addressed in Response 1-2. The commenter also requests that the City consider the development limitations proposed under Land Use Element Action LU-8.2e and Conservation and Open Space Element Actions COS-3.2c, COS- 3.2d, COS-3.2h, COS-3.7a, COS-3.5d, and COS-3.5e to ensure the proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain, improve, and propose new State Parks recreational facilities within the City.
Refer to Response 1-2. The City’s Open Space designation is appropriate for areas such as Pismo Lake, Monarch Butterfly Grove, and NB campground, and does not preclude improvements for public recreational uses while preserving and minimizing impacts to these areas. Land Use Element Action LU 8.2e Permitted Development has been renumbered as Action LU 8.2d Permitted Development. Action LU 8.2d contains flexible language, stating development shall be limited to specific recreational orientated improvements. Actions COS-3.2c, COS- 3.2d, COS-3.2h, COS-3.7a, COS-3.5d, and COS-3.5e have been renumbered as Actions COS-4.3d, COS- 4.3df COS-4.3k, COS-
4.8a, COS-4.6d, and COS-4.6e, respectively. Policies and actions contained within the Conservation and Open Space Element, including Actions COS-4.3d, COS- 4.3df COS-4.3k, COS-4.8a, COS-4.6d, and COS-4.6e, are driven by regional, state, and federal legislation including, but not limited to, the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Porter – Cologne Water Quality Act, California Coastal Act. As a result, no change is warranted to the policies and actions in the Land Use and Conservation and Open Space Elements.
Response 1-13
The commenter notes that Figure 4.13.1 of the EIR indicates that Pismo Lake, NB campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove are mapped Resource-Based Open Space. The commenter recommends that the City consider the appropriateness of the Resource-Based Open
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-7
Space designation given the developed recreational use of NB campground and potential future plans to improve public access amenities for Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove.
The commenter notes that Pismo Lake (i.e. Pismo Creek Marsh) is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. The commenter notes that the state may want to reclassify the preserve consistent with the Department of Parks and Recreation unit designation and/or improve public access to the area in the future. The commenter recommends Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS-3.9 and its associated Actions be revised to reflect the correct ownership of the land and to ensure the Department of Parks and Recreation is consulted with regards to any proposed project design, mitigation measures, and/or habitat resource protection program that would affect the property.
Refer to Response 1-2 regarding land use designations for the NB campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove. As suggested by the commenter, Actions COS-3.9a, COS-3.9h, and
3.9i under Policy COS-3.9 have been revised in the Conservation and Open Space Element to include coordination with the Department of Parks and Recreation. The revised text now reads as follows:
Action COS-3.9a: Protection Program. The City shall develop a resource protection and passive recreational program for Pismo Marsh in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Parks and Recreation, and City of Grover Beach.
Action COS-3.9h: Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The City shall consult with the Department of Parks and Recreation and California Department of Fish and Wildlife with regards to project design and mitigation measures when a private development could potentially affect the marsh.
Action COS-3.9i: Visual and Interpretive Access. The unique ecological system of Pismo Lake needs to be made available to the community as a whole. Since protection of the habitat is the primary concern of the Department of Parks and Recreation and California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife, physical access to the preserve has generally been prohibited by the state.
Therefore, it is essential to make the marsh available visually. Private developments adjacent to the marsh shall use it as a key visual and open space feature of the development. Pedestrian spaces shall be oriented to the marsh and view corridors to the marsh provided. Additionally, the Department of Parks and Recreation and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, in cooperation with Pismo Beach and Grover Beach, shall be encouraged to develop the potential of Pismo Lake as an educational and recreational resource.
Actions COS-3.9a, COS-3.9h, and COS-3.9i have been renumbered as COS-4.8a, COS-4.8h, and COS-
4.8i, are not cited in the Draft EIR. No other changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-14
The commenter notes that Pismo Creek Marsh is identified in the Conservation and Open Space Fact Sheet (Appendix C of the EIR) as owned and managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The property is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve.
The ownership by the Department of Parks and Recreation for Pismo Creek Marsh has been updated as follows in Section 5.3, Riparian and Wetland Habitat, of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update:
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-8
The marsh is 54 acres and is under the ownership of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. and management of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Draft EIR does not specify the owner of Pismo Creek Marsh. Note that Appendix C of the Draft EIR has been removed from the Final EIR because it is outdated as a result of the changes made to the GP/LCP Update between the Draft and Final EIR. The ownership of Pismo Creek Marsh is not discussed within the Draft EIR and has no bearing on the analysis provided within the EIR. The revision to the GP/LCP Update and deletion of Appendix C (Conservation and Open Space Element Fact Sheet) of the Draft EIR does not affect the findings or conclusions of the EIR. No additional changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-15
The commenter provides the same comment addressed in Response 1-2. Refer to Response 1-2.
Response 1-16
The commenter notes that the state-owned parking lot (Addie Street) is incorrectly identified in Appendix D (Land Use Fact Sheet) of the Draft EIR as City-owned and, thus, the number of City- owned lots is incorrect.
Appendix D of the Draft EIR has been removed from the Final EIR because it is outdated as a result of the changes made to the GP/LCP Update between the Draft and Final EIR. Parking lot ownership is not discussed within the Draft EIR or the Land Use Element of the GP/LCP Update and has no bearing on the analysis provided within the EIR. The deletion of Appendix D (Land Use Fact Sheet) of the Draft EIR does not affect the findings or conclusions of the EIR. No additional changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-17
The commenter recognizes the importance of the state-owned Addie Street parking lot in providing the City, it citizenry, and visitors parking and public access.
This comment is noted for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 1-18
The commenter requests any proposed projects on state property and operated by the City be discussed in advance with the state in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations.
Refer to Responses 1-5, 1-9, and 1-11.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-9
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Kelsie Shroll, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians DATE: February 17, 2022
Response 2-1
The commenter acknowledges notification of the project and requests no further consultation on this project.
This comment is noted for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-10
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Jenna Schudson, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DATE: March 18, 2022
Response 3-1
The commenter states that Caltrans supports projects that improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure and that continued coordination with the City is imperative to achieving overall network connectivity.
Caltrans’ support of projects that improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure is noted for the record. The City will continue coordination with Caltrans as appropriate for projects affecting the transportation network in and through the city.
Response 3-2
The commenter notes the relationship between transportation planning, including using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a metric for evaluating impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
The commenter notes the EIR finding that future development in the city would result in increased long-term VMT and future individual development projects in the city would require focused, project-level environmental review and, as applicable, project-specific mitigation to reduce VMT.
The commenter states that they look forward to reviewing project-level documents and providing comment on relevant mitigation options.
Caltrans’ request to review future project-level environmental documents within the City is noted.
The City will continue coordination with Caltrans as appropriate for projects affecting the transportation network in and through the city.
Response 3-3
The commenter encourages the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that increase the efficiency of the transportation system. The commenter notes potential impacts from the GP/LCP Update to pedestrian and bicycle travel and recognizes goals and policies in the GP/LCP Update to improve safety, access, and performance of the city’s multimodal system.
This comment is noted for the record. Refer to the Goals and supporting Guiding and Implementing Policies in the Circulation Element of the GP/LCP Update, which reflect the City’s vision for a comprehensive circulation system that is safe and efficient for pedestrians, bicycles, trucks, automobiles, and public transportation. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 3-4
The commenter notes that Caltrans District 5 recently completed its Active Transportation Plan. The commenter recommends reference to this plan as well as the US 101 Santa Maria to San Luis Obispo Multimodal Corridor Plan (2021) and 2021 Director’s Policy on Complete Streets (DP-37) in the EIR.
The Recirculated Draft EIR includes language additions to Section 4.14.2, Regulatory Setting, in Section 4.14, Transportation, to reference these plans. No further changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-11
Response 3-5
The commenter requests to be included in any future public noticing regarding the project to allow for their preparation and participation in the public process.
This request is noted. The City will continue to provide notices and consult with Caltrans on the project, as appropriate.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-12
Letter 4
COMMENTER: William Graulty, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services DATE: December 15, 2025
Response 4-1
The commenter states that the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services has reviewed the current Safety Element and has found no substantiative differences between the Safety Element and the San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
This comment references the City’s existing Safety Element and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. No further response is required.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-13
Letter 5
COMMENTER: Julie Vance, California Department of Fish and Wildlife DATE: February 9, 2026
Response 5-1
The commenter describes the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s role as a trustee and responsible agency and states the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s jurisdiction over nesting birds.
This comment is introductory and provides a summary of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s role and jurisdiction. The comment is noted for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 5-2
The commenter describes the contents of the GP/LCP Update and reasoning for preparing the Recirculated Draft EIR.
The commenter accurately describes contents of the GP/LCP Update and reasoning for preparing the Recirculated Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 5-3
The commenter states that since the release of the Draft EIR, western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) have been listed as candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. The commenter recommends these statues be reflected within the EIR.
Appendix D within the Final EIR provides a list of special-status species with potential to occur on the project site. Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) is listed in Table D-2, Special Status Wildlife Species Documented in or with the Potential to Occur in Pismo Beach, as a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act. The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) has been added to Table D-2 in Appendix D of the EIR as follows:
Scientific Name Common Name
FESA/CESA
Status
Other CDFW &
Local Status
Athene cunicularia hypugaea western burrowing owl –/SCE – The analysis in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, considered potential impacts to sensitive bird species. The addition of western burrowing owl to Table D-2 in Appendix D of the EIR does not change the analysis or conclusions in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the EIR Response 5-4
The commenter states the payment of California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees are necessary upon filing the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency.
The City understands that payment of filing fees is necessary and will pay all applicable fees at the time that the Notice of Determination is filed.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-14
Response 5-5
The commenter concludes the letter and provides contact information for further coordination regarding the letter.
This comment concludes the letter. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-15
Letter 6
COMMENTER: Andrew Grow
DATE: February 11, 2026
Response 6-1
The commenter provides comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR and attaches an email chain of comments provided to the Planning Commission and City Council in response to the Notice of Availability for the General Plan/Local Coastal Program Update and Final Environmental Impact Report. The commenter requests that his correspondence dated January 8, 2024, is entered into the record as it was submitted timely.
Responses to the commenter’s comments, including those within the correspondence dated January 8, 2024, are provided within Response 6-2 through 6-24 below.
Response 6-2
The commenter states the open space definition is not adequately analyzed in the EIR for impacts that could occur when sensitive habitats and areas with natural resources are designed as open space allowed to be used for recreational purposes.
Impacts to sensitive habitats, including those which are in areas that can be used for passive recreation, are evaluated in Impact BIO-1, Impact BIO-2, BIO-3 and Impact BIO-5 on Pages 4.3-18 through 4.3-32 and 4.3-33 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, impacts would be less than significant. The Recirculated Draft EIR does not include any substantial changes to the analysis within the Impact BIO-1, Impact BIO-2, BIO-3 and Impact BIO-5 of the Draft EIR. No changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6-3
The commenter states the EIR does not address impacts that occur from elimination of footnotes in Table 2-5 and asks how areas are protected consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251.
Coastal Act Section 30251 states the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance and permitted development shall be sited to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic costal areas. Coastal Act Section 30251 does not provide specific height limitations for development and thus the height limitations in Table 2-5 do not conflict with Coastal Act Section 30251. The revised Table 2-5 clarifies the height limitations for high-density residential and mixed-use development at 25-35 feet, consistent with height limitations in other zones identified in Table 2-5. Implementation of Action LU-2.1c, which requires development to be sited and designed to avoid a significant adverse impact on significant public views, be of appropriate building scale, and consistent with height limitations provided in the Zoning Ordinance would further ensure that views are protected consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251.
As stated in the 2026 Public Review Draft GP/LCP Update, Action LU-2.1c was implemented because of coordination between the City and the California Coastal Commission to ensure consistency with the Coastal Act. Accordingly, scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas would continue to be protected in accordance with Coastal Act Section 30251.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-16
Response 6-4
The commenter states “Significant Public View” in Action LU-2.1c needs to be defined.
As stated within Action LU-2.1c, the City defines significant public views as including blue water views of the ocean and views of the undeveloped open foothills as seen from Highway 101.
Response 6-5
The commenter states there are no studies to indicate why noise limits in Table 4.11-5 were reduced and states this change has the potential to affect properties in proximity to the highway.
The noise limits in Table 4.11-5 were revised consistent with revisions made to the Noise Element in the GP/LCP Update. These noise limits would be applicable for development that would occur after the adoption of the GP/LCP Update and therefore would not affect existing properties in proximity to United States Route 101. As stated within the Noise Element, residential building construction in compliance with the 2020 building code reduces residential interior noise levels by 15-20 dBA and often lowers noise levels to acceptable standards. No changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6-6
The commenter states the maps in the Recirculated Draft EIR are small scale. The commenter states Figure 4.1-1 does not depict specific views or show view corridors.
Full page-sized maps can be viewed within the Recirculated Draft EIR. The revision to the map within the Recirculated Draft EIR is intended for consistency with the mapping in the 2026 Public Review Draft GP/LCP Update. Context for Figure 4.1-1 is provided on Page 4.1-1 through 4.1-3 of the Draft EIR. As described therein, the City designates specific areas along the coast that offer panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and coastline as scenic vistas. No changes to the EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 6-7
The commenter states there is no reference to additional studies or information that resulted in revision to Figures 4.11-1 and 4.13-1.
Figures 4.11-1 and 4.13-1 were revised consistent with revisions made to the Noise Element and Conservation and Open Space Element in the GP/LCP Update to expand noise sensitive land uses and open space areas, respectively. During the July 2023 Planning Commission meeting, it was determined that a mapping error occurred for Figure 4.11-1, which was then updated prior to the scheduled City Council hearings. The revised Figure 4.13-1 reflects the figure presented to the Planning Commission in 2023.
Response 6-8
The commenter states there are no references to additional studies or information that resulted in mapping changes. The commenter states the General Plan should have maps of appropriate scale.
The commenter states the Draft GP/LCP Update uses the term open space including as a land use designation and to reference land that is used for recreational purposes. The commenter states these issues should be addressed to avoid confusion between a Land Use designation and Open Space Element policy.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-17
Refer to Responses 6-2, 6-6, and 6-7.
Response 6-9
The commenter states they submitted comment letters prior to the October 27, 2023 Zoning Code/Implementation Plan Update Workshop that were not entered until the record until after the workshop and are including such letters within the January 8, 2024 letter.
The comments included within the January 8, 2024 letter are included within the record herein.
Response 6-10
The commenter states the Zoning Ordinance update includes rezoning a portion of Shell Beach from residential to open space but the City has not clarified whether the City intends to keep the area undeveloped or acquire the land for public purposes. The commenter requests the long-term plan for the area be defined in the GP/LCP and the City should hold meetings with property owners.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The GP/LCP Update would maintain the existing Open Space land use designation of the area between Shell Beach Road and United States Route 101 from the area. GP/LCP Action LU-1.6c and Policy LU-9.2 prohibits land divisions in this area and designates this area as permanent open space; however, Action LU-1.6c and Policy LU-9.2 does not preclude development in these areas. The City does not have specific development proposals for this area; however, any future development within this area would be consistent with the uses included within Chapter 17.054 of the City’s Municipal Code which governs land uses in the Open Space-Recreational Use zone. The Open Space land use designation does allow for development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities and limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint. Development proposals would be noticed in accordance with City and State public noticing requirements.
Response 6-11
The commenter states that the Shell Beach Road area is developed without sensitive resources and the reason why the area is designated open space is due to sensitive views. The commenter states height limitations and overlays are already sufficient to protect science views and the City should re-evaluate its open space designation.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The GP/LCP Update defines the open space land use designation as areas with significant natural resources, environmentally sensitive habitats, and/or scenic views to be protected. As such, the open space land use designation is applicable for areas with scenic views. The current land use designation for the parcels on the east side of Shell Beach Road is Open Space, which is the same designation that is being carried forward in the GP/LCP Update.
Response 6-12
The commenter states Policy LU-1.6 and Action LU-1.6d conflict with each other and notes permanent open space is not defined.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. Note that Action LU-1.6d has been renumbered to Action LU-1.6c. The current land use designation for the parcels on the east side of Shell Beach Road is Open Space, which is the same designation that is being carried forward in the
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-18
GP/LCP Update. “Permanent open space” refers to the land use designation of Open Space in the GP/LCP Update.
Response 6-13
The commenter states that restricting development along Shell Beach Road applies development pressure on other lands which have resources needing protection.
Under existing conditions, the land use designation for the parcels on the east side of Shell Beach Road are designated as Open Space, which allows for development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities (e.g., tennis courts, pickleball courts, parking lots, etc.). In addition, the Open Space designation allows for limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint. The Open Space land use designation would continue to be applicable to this area under the GP/LCP Update. As such, the GP/LCP Update does not preclude development in these areas compared to existing conditions. As described in Impact BIO-2 of the EIR, several GP/LCP Update policies require preservation of wetland and riparian habitat, compliance with State and federal regulations, and prohibition of specific development near riparian corridors, thereby adequately protecting wetlands and riparian areas during buildout of the GP/LCP Update, and impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat would be less than significant. No changes to the EIR are required.
Response 6-14
The commenter states the EIR addresses the need for removal of obstacles to growth and by focusing development within an urbanized area it reduces growth in undeveloped areas. The commenter states Shell Beach Road could be designated for infill growth while protecting scenic viewsheds.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The GP/LCP Update does not preclude development within the Shell Beach area, rather, the GP/LCP Update carries forward the existing Open Space land use designation on the east side of Shell Beach Road, which allows for development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities. In addition, the Open Space designation allows for limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint. Accordingly, the GP/LCP Update would allow certain types of development east of Shell Beach Road consistent with the Open Space designation.
Response 6-15
The commenter states the EIR does not analyze the impacts created with the removal of housing units within the Shell Beach Road area to facilitate the area being maintained as permanent open space. The commenter states keeping this area as open space could create risks associated with wildland fire.
Under existing conditions, the land use designation for the parcels on the east side of Shell Beach Road are designated as Open Space, which would be carried forward under the GP/LCP Update. This land use does not preclude all development and would not require the removal of existing housing within the Shell Beach Road area. The City is not proposing any housing removal or decreases in residential density in the Shell Beach Road area as part of GP/LCP Update implementation.
Wildland fire hazards are addressed in Impact HAZ-5 of the EIR. As described therein, the majority of roads and utility infrastructure required for growth facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be existing or would occur in currently developed areas, including within the Open Space areas east of
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-19
Shell Beach Road, where large tracts of vegetation cover are not present. The Open Space land use designation does allow for development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities and limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint; therefore, development in the Open Space land use designation could occur. The risk of wildland fire in this area would not be exacerbated due to a lack of development, as certain development would continue to be allowed to occur east of Shell Beach Road in accordance with the GP/LCP Update. No changes to the EIR are required.
Response 6-16
The commenter states the Shell Beach Road area does not contain environmental resources other than the scenic viewshed which is protected by height limitations and therefore the area should not be characterized as open space or restricted from development due to implementation of Action LU-1.6d.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. Refer to Response 6-13. As described therein, the existing Open Space land use designation which is being carried forward for parcels on the east side of Shell Beach Road under the GP/LCP Update does not preclude development in these areas. Rather, development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities would continue to be permitted in this area. In addition, the Open Space designation allows for limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint. No changes to the EIR are required.
Response 6-17
The commenter states that City staff has told property owners between Shell Beach Road and United States Route 101 their property won’t be affected by the Zoning Code update which is contrary to draft GP/LCP Update materials which the commenter states restricts all development in the Shell Beach Road area. The commenter states public notification of project development is not sufficient. The commenter asks the plans for the Shell Beach area and a definition of permanent open space.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. As described in Section 2.4, Characteristics of the GP/LCP Update, of the EIR, when a General Plan is amended in a way that makes the Zoning Ordinance inconsistent with the General Plan, “the zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended.” The City is currently in the process of examining different options to address potential inconsistencies between the Zoning Ordinance and the Housing Element and between the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the GP/LCP Update. The draft Zoning Code is anticipated to be released for public review and comment following adoption of the GP/LCP Update. The City will communicate information regarding subsequent Zoning Ordinance updates to members of the public, including updates to owners of any affected properties.
Regarding the definition of permanent open space and plans for the Shell Beach area, refer to Responses 6-12 and 6-13. As described therein, “permanent open space” refers to the land use designation of Open Space in the GP/LCP Update which permits development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities as well as limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-20
Response 6-18
The commenter links to previous letters submitted prior to the August 22, 2023 Planning Commission hearing.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. These letters are incorporated into the record as part of this comment letter.
Response 6-19
The commenter states the City’s Housing Element conflicts with the draft GP/LCP Update as the proposed land use and zoning prohibit development in the permanent open space area between Shell Beach Road and United States Route 101, which was counted in the vacant lot inventory of the Housing Element.
Refer to Responses 6-13 and 6-17. As described therein, the Open Space land use designation does not preclude development. The City is currently in the process of examining different options to address potential inconsistencies between the Zoning Ordinance and the Housing Element and between the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the GP/LCP Update. The City will communicate information regarding subsequent Zoning Ordinance updates to members of the public.
Response 6-20
The commenter states in a City Council hearing, the Community Development Director reaffirmed the City must require a fee title dedication on the portion of the McNeal parcel between Shell Beach Rd and United States Route 101 to ensure that it is not developed and remains in permanent open space. The commenter states this area has no open space qualities and asks why the open space designation is provided.
Refer to Response 6-13. As described therein, the existing Open Space land use designation which is being carried forward for parcels on the east side of Shell Beach Road under the GP/LCP Update does not preclude development in these areas. The Open Space land use designation is not intended for intensive development, but does allow for development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities. In addition, the Open Space designation allows for limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint.
Response 6-21
The commenter states that there is a housing crisis and the continual placement of constraints to development would force removal of existing residential development which conflicts with the City’s Housing Element.
Refer to Response 6-17. As described therein, the City is currently in the process of examining different options to address potential inconsistencies between the Zoning Ordinance and the Housing Element and between the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the GP/LCP Update in order to ensure, in part, that the Zoning Ordinance allows for the residential development necessary to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation identified within the City’s Housing Element.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-21
Response 6-22
The commenter requests a definition of permanent open space and states that the Shell Beach Road area is developed and considered by the City’s Housing Element as having potential for additional housing units.
Refer to Responses 6-12 and 6-17. As described therein, “permanent open space” refers to the land use designation of Open Space in the GP/LCP Update. The City is currently in the process of examining different options to ensure consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the Housing Element and between the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element of the GP/LCP Update in order to ensure, in part, that the Zoning Ordinance allows for the residential development necessary to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation identified within the City’s Housing Element.
Response 6-23
The commenter requests that the materials included in the comment letter and related materials are presented during GP/LCP Update hearings.
This comment letter, including all attachments, is provided in the record.
Response 6-24
The commenter states that the GP/LCP Update designates the strip of land between Shell Beach Road and U.S. Route 101 from El Portal to Spyglass Drive as Open Space. The commenter states the policies within the Land Use Element addressing the Sunset Palisades/Shell Beach area are inconsistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element's description of open space and policies and actions within the Conservation and Open Space Element. The commenter states this area is designated open space for scenic views only but does not identify other resources in the Conservation and Open Space Element as needing protection.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The GP/LCP Update maintains the Open Space land use designation for parcels east of Shell Beach Road and clarifies that Open Space is applied to areas that include significant natural resources, environmentally sensitive habitats, and/or scenic views requiring protection. The Open Space land use designation is not intended for intensive development, but does allow for development intended to facilitate recreational opportunities. In addition, the Open Space designation allows for limited residential development of one dwelling unit per lot within a 5,000 square foot footprint. In addition, Action LU‑2.1c defines significant public views to include blue‑water ocean views and the undeveloped open foothills as seen from U.S. 101, thereby establishing a nexus to the Open Space land use designation. These provisions reflect consistency between the Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element with respect to scenic resource protection.
Response 6-25
The commenter states the main policy for the protection of scenic resources applicable to the Sunset Palisades/Shell Beach area is Policy COS-2.1. The commenter states that Figure CO-2 in the Conservation and Open Space Element identifies conservation areas in Pismo Beach, which does not include the Sunset Palisades/Shell Beach area.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The GP/LCP includes multiple components to designate and protect scenic resources, including Action LU‑2.1c, Figure CO‑1, and related design and siting standards in the Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element. The
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-22
GP/LCP’s mapping of conservation areas is not the sole determinant of scenic‑resource protection.
Accordingly, whether or not a specific subarea is shaded on Figure CO‑2 does not limit application of citywide scenic‑resource policies.
Response 6-26
The commenter states there are several actions within the GP/LCP Update to enforce Policy COS-
2.1, including Policy LU-9.2 and Actions LU-9.1b and LU-9.2a. The commenter states the term “permanent open space” in Policy LU-9.2 is not defined and the policy does not establish a nexus for the protection of views. The commenter states “open space character” is not defined and there is no nexus between Action LU-9.2a and the protection of scenic views.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. In the GP/LCP, “permanent open space” is implemented through the Open Space land use designation which allows for limited uses that maintain open space character. Open space character includes a variety of areas which range from natural areas, scenic areas, and recreation areas. Policy LU‑9.2 and Actions LU‑9.1b and LU‑9.2a protect public views by reducing the level of development permitted within the Open Space land use designation which ensures that views are not obstructed from large buildings.
Response 6-27
The commenter suggests Table LU-2 should clarify whether the 97 acres of open space are developed or permanent open space. The commenter states that it is inaccurate that the area between Shell Beach Road and U.S. 101 has historically been utilized as open space with limited residential development. The commenter states the areas is not in a natural state as much of it has been subject to grading and disturbance and should be considered an infill area. The commenter states the rezoning of these parcels from residential to open space preservation (OS-P) would have a negative impact on property values.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The Open Space land use designation already applies to the east side of Shell Beach Road and is carried forward in the GP/LCP Update.
This designation does not preclude development but limits development intensity to maintain open space character and protect scenic resources. The Zoning Ordinance update is a separate effort from the GP/LCP Update. Existing properties within the Sunset Palisades/Shell Beach area would not be affected as a result of GP/LCP Update implementation.
Response 6-28
The commenter states that due to Action LU-8.2h, residences on Shell Beach Road in the Sunset Palisades neighborhood would be designated as non-conforming structures and would become subject to more restrictive regulations proposed in the zoning ordinance update which could result in financial implications and the removal of property improvements.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. Action LU-8.2h, Legal Non-Conforming Structures and Uses, has been removed from the GP/LCP Update.
Response 6-29
The commenter states the Land Use Element policies are not needed to protect the scenic corridor and restrict private property rights and additional development. The commenter states these policies mandate areas of undeveloped land that will create potential fire hazards and dust nuisances.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-23
The Open Space designation east of Shell Beach Road does not prohibit development. Rather, it allows open‑space‑compatible uses. Accordingly, development can still occur on these parcels in accordance with the GP/LCP Update. Land Use Element policies are intended to guide the character of development within different land use designations throughout Pismo Beach, including in the Open Space land use designation.
Regarding fire, refer to Response 6-15. As described therein, the risk of wildland fire in this area would not be exacerbated due to a lack of development, as development would continue to be allowed to occur east of Shell Beach Road in accordance with the GP/LCP Update. Regarding dust, the generation of dust primarily occurs due to the use of construction equipment. As described in Impact AQ-2, the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require standard mitigation for construction equipment to minimize dust generation to a less than significant level.
Based on the above, no changes to the EIR are required.
Response 6-30
The commenter states property owners in the area were not made aware of specific impacts to their properties and that the GP/LCP Update process had a lack of public outreach. The commenter suggests a workshop notice to property owners affected by the GP/LCP Update.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The City Planning Commission previously held public hearings for the GP/LCP Update on July 25, 2023, December 9, 2025, and January 13, 2026. The City provided public notice of all meetings consistent with State and local requirements and will continue to do so for future meetings. The suggestion for a property‑owner workshop will be forwarded to decision‑makers for consideration as part of ongoing public engagement for the GP/LCP Update; however, it should be noted that existing properties in the Sunset Palisades/Shell Beach area will not be required to be altered or abandoned as a result of GP/LCP Update implementation.
Response 6-31
The commenter requests the GP/LCP designation of the Sunset Palisades/Shell Beach area is revised back to a residential designation, the GP/LCP Update policies protecting scenic views in the Shell Beach Road area are limited to policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element, that the City reaffirm that “permanent open space” and “open space character” are intended to only protect viewsheds, and that the City removes specific development standards in the GP/LCP Update and puts such standards in the zoning ordinance.
This comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. Refer to Response 6-10 through Response 6-30 which address the issues raised by the commenter. The commenter’s requests will be forwarded to decision makers.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-24
Letter 7
COMMENTER: Roger Jacobs, California Department of Parks and Recreation DATE: January 5, 2024
Response 7-1
The commenter states that the Department of Parks and Recreation, Oceano Dunes District has provided three comment letters to the City of Pismo Beach dated February 14, 2022; December 22, 2022; and January 5, 2024. The commenter states that the Department of Parks and Recreation, Oceano Dunes District is a landowner of Pismo State Beach. This includes a parking lot at the western terminus of Addie Street, North Beach (NB) campground, Pismo Lake, the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, and approximately 8 miles of state beach, of which the City of Pismo Beach manages approximately 1.25 miles through a Lease Agreement with the state.
This comment is introductory and provides a summary of the Department of Parks and Recreation and submitted comment letters. The comment is noted for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-2
The commenter states that the City operates portions of Pismo State Beach under an expired operating agreement that covers approximately one mile of sandy beach. The commenter details that the land includes two parking lots, two public restroom buildings, a lateral boardwalk, and that State Parks does not own the pier or the land under the pier. The commenter states the tasks the City performs to maintain the area and events held by the city and states the State Parks management of the area. The commenter recommends the development of a new operating agreement as part of the City’s GP/LCP Update.
The City will consult with the Department of Parks and Recreation on any planned improvements to state property within the City and will follow all applicable laws. While outside the scope of the EIR, development of an operating agreement will be forwarded to decisionmakers for their consideration and approval. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-3
The commenter expresses concern regarding aspects of the City’s operation of the land including building improvements, safety services, wildlife issues, water quality, and activities held on the land.
The commenter lists other issues that should be considered during renewal of the operating agreement. The commenter recommends the development of a new operating agreement as part of the City’s GP/LCP Update.
Refer to Response 7-2 for a discussion regarding renewal of the operating agreement between the City and the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Response 7-4
The commenter notes that Pismo Lake (i.e. Pismo Creek Marsh) and Monarch Butterfly Grove are owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and are known by the retained names of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove,
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-25
respectively. The commenter recommends referencing both accurately throughout the GP/LCP Update.
The ownership of Pismo Creek Marsh and Monarch Butterfly Grove is not discussed within the Draft EIR and has no bearing on the analysis provided within the EIR. The GP/LCP Update refers to both the Pismo Creek Marsh and Monarch Butterfly Grove as their locally recognized designations. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-5
The commenter reiterates Pismo Lake (i.e. Pismo Creek Marsh) and Monarch Butterfly Grove are owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and are known by the retained names of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, respectively. The commenter states naming conventions within Action COS-3.2a are incorrect.
Refer to Response 1-4 for a discussion of revisions to Action COS-3.2a. Refer to Response 7-4 for a discussion of naming conventions in the EIR. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-6
The commenter recommends Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS-3.9 and its associated Actions be revised to reflect the correct ownership of the land and to ensure the Department of Parks and Recreation is consulted with regards to future planning for the area.
Refer to Response 1-13 for a discussion of revisions to Policy COS-3.9. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-7
In response to Land Use Element Action LU-15.2m, the commenter requests that all signage on State owned and managed property be referenced as the “Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve”.
Additionally, the commenter requests any proposed signage for this property be reviewed by State Parks, Oceano Dunes District.
The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to decision makers. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-8
The commenter requests that state property designations be changed from OS-P to Commercial Recreation Zone, Coastal (CR-C) and Open Space Recreation Zone (OS-R).
The zoning code would be updated concurrently with the GP/LCP Update for consistency. The commenter’s suggestion is noted for the record and will be forwarded to decision makers. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-9
The commenter requests that the City consider the development limitations associated with Actions LU-8.2e, COS-3.2c, COS-3.2d, COS-3.2h, COS-3.7a, COS-3.5d, and COS-3.5e that may prevent the ability of the state to maintain, improve, and propose new State Parks recreational facilities within the city. Additionally, the state requests the City evaluate development limitations associated with
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-26
implementation of Safety Element Actions 2.5b, 2.5c, 2.5d and Action LU-4.2I that may prevent the State from maintaining and improving existing State Parks recreational and operational facilities in the city. The commenter requests that all proposed projects in the portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City under a lease agreement be discussed with the State to meet policies, rules and regulations concerning sea level rise.
Refer to Response 1-12 for a discussion of changes related to Policy 3.2 and associated actions and subsequent development. Actions COS-3.2c, COS- 3.2d, COS-3.2h, COS-3.7a, COS-3.5d, and COS-3.5e have been renumbered as Actions COS-4.3d, COS- 4.3df COS-4.3k, COS-4.8a, COS-4.6d, and COS-
4.6e, respectively. The Safety Element is not being updated as part of the GP/LCP Update.
Accordingly, Safety Element Actions 2.5b, 2.5c, 2.5d are no longer applicable. Action LU-4.2I has been renumbered as Action LU-4.2k. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-10
The commenter states that Pismo Lake, NB campground, and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove are designated by the City as Open Space. The commenter notes that the State may want to improve and develop these areas in the future for visitor services, public access, and natural resource protection and would like to ensure such improvements would not be inconsistent with the requirements of the Open Space designation. The commenter recommends the City review this land use designation to ensure compatibility with the state’s existing and future recreational improvements.
The commenter states Pismo Coast Village RV Resort (PCV) and NB campground operate campgrounds to support a recreational vehicle (RV) camping experience, and notes that PCV is designated as Resort Commercial and NB campground is designated as Open Space. Given the developed, recreational use of NB campground, the commenter recommends the City consider a Resort Commercial land use and Commercial Recreation zoning designation.
Refer to Response 1-2 for a discussion of recreational improvements. Refer to Response 1-3 for a discussion of land use designations for the Pismo Coast Village RV Resort and NB Campground.
Response 7-11
The commenter recommends the City remove Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA) from the environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) designations because ODSVRA is not in a City General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) responsibility area. Correspondingly, the commenter recommends removing reference to the ODSVRA from the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area description and proposed Action COS-3.2a.
Refer to Response 1-4 for a discussion of the ODSVRA and its ESHA designation.
Response 7-12
The commenter recommends the City consult with the state on any planned improvements to state property within the GP/LCP Project area (i.e., Addie Street). Correspondingly, the commenter recommends this change to the Draft Circulation Element Policies CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40, as well as Draft Conservation and Open Space Element Action COS-1.1c.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-27
Refer to Response 1-5 for a discussion of revisions to the GP/LCP Update related to consultation with the state on planned improvements within the GP/LCP Update area. Circulation Element Policies CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40 have been renumbered to CE-3.6 and CE-7.6, respectively.
Response 7-13
The commenter requests that the City include Western snowy plover in the Special Status Wildlife Species, Appendix G, Table G-2 of the EIR.
Refer to Response 1-6 for a discussion of the Western snowy plover.
Response 7-14
The commenter describes the importance of protecting significant natural and cultural resources and will manage and/or design any state projects on state lands consistent with state rules, regulations, and policies. The commenter refers to additional comments regarding Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, wetland and stream resources, and buffers in Comment #11 of their letter.
Refer to Response 1-7 and 1-12 for a discussion of natural and cultural resources.
Response 7-15
The commenter notes that the State is continuing to pursue a final Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Oceano Dunes District, including portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City under a Lease Agreement. The commenter states that once the HCP is approved, all portions of Pismo State Beach must comply with HCP conditions.
Refer to Response 1-8 for a discussion of compliance with applicable HCPs.
Response 7-16
The commenter requests any proposed projects on the portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City under a Lease Agreement be discussed in advance with the state to meet state policies, rules, and regulations for sensitive tribal and cultural resources. The commenter also requests notification of any proposed projects on City property that have potential to impact known cultural resources with boundaries that abut and/or overlap with state property.
Refer to Response 1-9 for a discussion of development and protection of cultural resources.
Response 7-17
The commenter states environmental and planning documents should not contain information about the location of Native American archaeological sites, sacred sites, or other tribal resources, and recommends all resources be considered important or significant until formal evaluation indicates otherwise.
The EIR does not contain sensitive information regarding the location of Native American archaeological sites, sacred sites, or other tribal resources. GP/LCP Update policies require the protection and evaluation of cultural and tribal cultural resources.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-28
Response 7-18
The commenter requests any proposed projects on the portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City be discussed in advance with the state to meet state policies, rules, and regulations related to sea level rise. The commenter requests that the City consider the development limitations proposed under Safety Element Actions S-2.5b, S-2.5c, and S-2.5d to ensure the proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain and improve existing State Parks recreational and operational facilities within the City as provided for in proposed Action LU-4.2l: Maintenance of Campgrounds and RV Parks.
The Safety Element is not being updated as part of the GP/LCP Update. Accordingly, the Safety Element actions the commenter references are no longer applicable. Action LU-4.2I has been renumbered as Action LU-4.2k.
Response 7-19
The commenter provides the same comment addressed in Response 1-2. The commenter also requests that the City consider the development limitations proposed under Land Use Element Action LU-8.2e and Conservation and Open Space Element Actions COS-3.2c, COS- 3.2d, COS-3.2h, COS-3.7a, COS-3.5d, and COS-3.5e to ensure the proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain, improve, and propose new State Parks recreational facilities within the City.
Refer to Response 1-2 for a discussion of recreational improvements. Refer to Response 1-12 for a discussion of changes related to Policy 3.2 and associated actions and subsequent development.
Actions COS-3.2c, COS- 3.2d, COS-3.2h, COS-3.7a, COS-3.5d, and COS-3.5e have been renumbered as Actions COS-4.3d, COS- 4.3df COS-4.3k, COS-4.8a, COS-4.6d, and COS-4.6e, respectively.
Response 7-20
The commenter notes that Figure 4.13.1 of the EIR indicates that Pismo Lake, NB campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove are mapped Resource-Based Open Space. The commenter recommends that the City consider the appropriateness of the Resource-Based Open Space designation given the developed recreational use of NB campground and potential future plans to improve public access amenities for Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove.
The commenter notes that Pismo Lake (i.e. Pismo Creek Marsh) is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. The commenter notes that the state may want to reclassify the preserve consistent with the Department of Parks and Recreation unit designation and/or improve public access to the area in the future. The commenter recommends Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS-3.9 and its associated Actions be revised to reflect the correct ownership of the land and to ensure the Department of Parks and Recreation is consulted with regards to any proposed project design, mitigation measures, and/or habitat resource protection program that would affect the property.
Refer to Response 1-2 regarding land use designations for the NB campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove. Refer to Response 1-13 for a discussion of revisions to Policy COS-
3.9 and associated actions.
Responses to Comments
Final Environmental Impact Report 7-29
Response 7-21
The commenter notes that Pismo Creek Marsh is identified in the Conservation and Open Space Fact Sheet (Appendix C of the EIR) as owned and managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The property is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve.
Refer to Response 1-14 for a discussion of Appendix C. Appendix C of the Draft EIR has been removed from the Final EIR because it is outdated as a result of the changes made to the GP/LCP Update between the Draft and Final EIR.
Response 7-22
The commenter provides the same comment addressed in Response 1-2.
Refer to Response 1-2.
Response 7-23
The commenter notes that the state-owned parking lot (Addie Street) is incorrectly identified in Appendix D (Land Use Fact Sheet) of the Draft EIR as City-owned and, thus, the number of City- owned lots is incorrect.
Refer to Response 1-16 for a discussion of Appendix D. Appendix D of the Draft EIR has been removed from the Final EIR because it is outdated as a result of the changes made to the GP/LCP Update between the Draft and Final EIR.
Response 7-24
The commenter recognizes the importance of the state-owned Addie Street parking lot in providing the City, its citizenry, and visitors parking and public access.
This comment is noted for the record. The comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR and no further response is required.
Response 7-25
The commenter requests any proposed projects on state property and operated by the City be discussed in advance with the state in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations.
Refer to Responses 1-5, 1-9, and 1-11 for a discussion of proposed projects on state property and operated by the City.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
7-30
This page intentionally left blank.
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-1
8 References
8.1 Bibliography
Aesthetics
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. Scenic Highways – California State Scenic Highways, State Scenic Highway Map and Scenic Highway System Lists. Accessed May 2021.
Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and- community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways
______. 2008. Scenic Highway Guidelines. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/scenic-hwy-guidelines-04-12-2012.pdf Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan. Available at:
https://www.pismobeach.org/877/Downtown-Strategic-Plan
______. 2014. City of Pismo Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program. April 2014. Available at:
https://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/01-General-Plan-?bidId= ______. 1983. Pismo Beach Municipal Code – Title 17 Zoning Ordinance (1983 Code). Accessed May 2021. Available at: https://www.pismobeach.org/149/Municipal-Code ______. 2017. Shell Beach Design Standards and Guidelines. Available at:
http://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/49081/Shell-Beach-Design-Standards- and-Guidelines?bidId=
Air Quality
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2018. Best Practices in Climate Action Planning.
June 2018. https://www.califaep.org/docs/AEP_2018_White_Paper_Cap_Best_Practices.pdf (accessed December 2021).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Retrieved from: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf ______. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf (accessed May 2021).
______. 2020. “Select 8 Summary.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php (accessed March 2020).
______. 2021a. “Ambient Air Monitoring – Regulatory.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/ambient-air-monitoring-regulatory (accessed May 2021). ______. 2021b. “Select 8 Summary.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php (accessed May 2021).
______. 2021c. “CARB Identified Toxic Air Contaminants.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-identified-toxic-air-contaminants (accessed May 2021).
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-2
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. 2021. “EPA and NHTSA Seek Public Comment on Reconsideration of Prior Actions Concerning California’s Authority to Enforce Greenhouse Gas Standards and Mandate Zero Emission Vehicles.” https://www.gibsondunn.com/epa-and-nhtsa-seek- public-comment-on-reconsideration-of-prior-actions-concerning-californias-authority-to- enforce-greenhouse-gas-standards-and-mandate-zero-emission-vehicles/ (accessed May 2021).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2021. “Fact Sheet: SAFE Vehicles Rule.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe-fact-sheet (accessed May 2021).
Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. City of Pismo Beach Climate Action Plan. May. http://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/43549/Climate-Action-Plan-May- 2014?bidId= (accessed May 2021).
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2001. San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan. December. https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair- org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf (accessed May 2021). ______. 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair- org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29 _LinkedwithMemo.pdf (accessed May 2021).
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2017. Annual Air Quality Report.
San Luis Obispo, California. November, 2017. Retrieved from:
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/2016aqrt-FINAL.pdf . ______. 2018a. “ SLOAPCD NOA Screening Buffers.” Google. Retrieved from:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35.3 6659663637519%2C-120.83256404199216&z=13
______. 2019. “San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status.” https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/AttainmentStatus29January2019.pdf (accessed May 2021). ______. 2020a. 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan. June. https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/2020-network- plan-final.pdf (accessed May 2021).
U.S. Climate Data. 2021. “Climate Pismo Beach – California.” https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/pismo-beach/california/united-states/usca0872 (accessed May 2021).
Biological Resources
California Department of Wildlife (CDFW). 2021a. California Natural Diversity Database. Rarefind
5.2.14. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp (accessed February 2021).
______. 2021b. NCCP Plan Summaries.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans (accessed March 2021).
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-3
______. 2021c. Information for Planning and Conservation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed March 2021).
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). http://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed February 2021).
Holland, V. L., and Keil, David J. 1995. California Vegetation. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Pub.
NatureServe. 2009. International Ecological Classification Standard: Terrestrial Ecological Classifications. NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA, U.S.A. Data current as of 6 February 2009.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2021. Critical Habitat [website]. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/critical- habitat#critical-habitat-designations,-maps,-and-gis-data (accessed March 2021).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Forest Service, Landfire. http://www.landfire.gov/ August 2016.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper [online]. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed March 2021). ______. 2021b. Environmental Conservation Online System, Critical Habitat Mapper [online]. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html (accessed March 2021). ______. 2021c. USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) [online]. https://www.fws.gov/southeast/conservation-tools/information-for-planning-and- consultation/#:~:text=IPaC%20is%20a%20project%20planning,be%20affected%20by%20a% 20project (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021d. Environmental Conservation Online System: Habitat Conservation Plans. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/conservationPlan/region/summary?region=8&type=HCP (accessed March 2021).
Cultural Resources
Brown, Alan K., ed. 2001. A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California, 1769-1770, by Juan Crespi. San Diego, California: San Diego State University Press.
California Office of Planning and Research. 2005. Tribal Consultation Guidelines. Supplement to General Plan Guidelines. November 14, 2005.
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/011414_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf Glassow, Michael A., Larry Wilcoxen, and Jon M. Erlandson. 1988. Cultural and Environmental Change During the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, by G. Bailey and J. Parkington, 64-77. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Greenwood, Roberta S. 1978. Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash. In California; Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8, by Robert F. Heizer, 520-523. Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution.
Johnson, John R. 1987. Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-4
Jones, Terry L. 1993. Big Sur: A Keystone in Central California Cultural History. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(1):1–78.
Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau. 2002. Deintensification along the Central California Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M.
Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 205-232. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6.
Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar. 2007 . California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland
Jones, Terry L. and Georgie Waugh. 1995. Central California Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles
______. 1997. Climatic Consequences of Population Pragmatism? A Middle Holocene Prehistory of the Central Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 111–128. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema. 2007. The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 125–146. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
King, Chester D. 1969. Approximate 1769 Chumash Village Locations and Populations. Annual Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey: 3.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Unabridged reprint 1976, Dover Publications, Inc. New York.
Miller, Bruce W. 1988. Chumash: A Picture of Their World. Los Osos, California: Sand River Press.
Mikkelsen, P., W.R. Hildebrandt, and D. A. Jones. 2000. Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay Estuary: Excavations at Site CA-SLO-165, Morro Bay, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Papers no. 14
Mills, Wayne, Michael F. Rondeau, and Terry L. Jones. 2005. A Fluted Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 25(2): 68-74 National Park Service. 1990. National Register Bulletin 15 – How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf Energy
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
November 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed February 2021).
California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2019. 2018 Report of California Oil and Gas Production Statistics. October 1, 2019. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/pubs_stats/annual_reports/Pages/annual_report s.aspx (accessed February 2021).
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-5
______. 2021. Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources – Well Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close (accessed March 2021).
California Department of Conservation Division of Geologic Energy Management (DGEM). 2020. 2019 Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor. October 2020. file:///C:/Users/arojas/Downloads/2019%20Annual%20Report%20of%20the%20State%20Oi l%20and%20Gas%20Supervisor.pdf (accessed December 2021).
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2003. Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Joint Agency Report with California Air Resources Board.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/fuels/carefinery/ab2076final.pdf (accessed February 2021). ______. 2007. State Alternative Fuels Plan. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600- 2007-011/CEC-600-2007-011-CMF.PDF (accessed September 2020). ______. 2018. “2019 Building Energy and Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.” March 2018. Retrieved from:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Buildin g_Standards_FAQ.pdf (accessed February 2020).
______. 2018. “Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation.” May 9, 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2018-05/energy-commission- adopts-standards-requiring-solar-systems-new-homes-first (accessed September 2020). ______. 2019. 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs- and-topics/programs/energy-efficiency-existing-buildings (accessed March 2021). ______. 2020a. Final 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. February. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report (accessed September 2020).
______. 2020b. “Electricity Consumption by County.”
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2021). ______. 2020c. “Electricity Consumption by Entity.” http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx (accessed March 2021).
______. 2020d. “Gas Consumption by County.” http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx (accessed March 2021).
______. 2020e. “Gas Consumption by Entity.” http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021a. Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries. http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleum_data/statistics/crude_oil_receipts.html (accessed February 2021).
______. 2021b. “Electric Generation Capacity & Energy.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/electric-generation-capacity-and-energy (accessed February 2021).
______. 2021c. “Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/data- reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gas-market/supply-and-demand-natural-gas- california (accessed February 2021).
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-6
______. 2021d. “2010-2019 CEC-A15 Results and Analysis.” https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874 (accessed March 2021).
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020. 2020 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf (accessed March 2020).
California Public Utilities Commission. 2008. 2008 Update to the Energy Action Plan. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/Utilities_and_Indu stries/Energy_-
_Electricity_and_Natural_Gas/2008%20Energy%20Action%20Plan%20Update.pdf (accessed February 2021).
City of Pismo Beach. 2014. City of Pismo Beach Climate Action Plan. May. http://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/43549/Climate-Action-Plan-Approved- May-
2014?bidId=#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Pismo%20Beach,and%20activities%20within%20 the%20community.&text=within%20Pismo%20Beach%20pursuant%20to%20State%20CEQA %20Guidelines%20Sections%2015152%20and%2015183.5 (accessed March 2021). ______. 2020. Pismo Beach Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pismobeach/latest/pismo_ca/0-0-0-1 (accessed March 2021).
DieselNet. 2017. “Engine Emission: Nonroad Diesel Engines.” https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php (accessed December 2021).
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2021. “ Southern California Daily Energy Report.” https://www.eia.gov/special/disruptions/socal/winter/ (accessed December 2021).
GasBuddy. 2021. “Search Gas Prices.” https://www.gasbuddy.com/ (accessed March 2021).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2021. “Fact Sheet: SAFE Vehicles Rule.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe-fact-sheet (accessed February 2021).
PG&E. 2019. “Where Your Electricity Comes From.”
https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your- bill/bill-inserts/2019/1019-Power-Content-Label.pdf (accessed March 2021). ______. 2020. Integrated Resource Plan 2020. September. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/for-our-business-partners/energy- supply/integrated-resource-planning/2020-PGE-Integrated-Resource-Plan.pdf (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021a. “Company Profile.” https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/profile/profile.page (accessed March 2021). ______. 2021b. “Renewable Energy and Storage.”
https://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2021/pf04_renewable_energy.html (accessed December 2021).
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-7
PlugShare. 2021. Best EV Charging Stations in Pismo Beach. https://www.plugshare.com/directory/us/california/pismo-beach (accessed December 2021).
SoCalGas. 2013. Southern California Gas Company’s Service Territory. https://www.socalgas.com/documents/news-room/fact-sheets/ServiceTerritory.pdf (accessed March 2020).
______. 2021. “Gas Transmission Pipeline Interactive Map – San Luis Obispo.” https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=bfa7495ffe5248f3af1 95b524284a5aa (accessed March 2021).
United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2021. “Alternative Fuels Data Center.” https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=BD&location=cal ifornia&page=1 (accessed March 2021).
United States Department of Transportation. 2014. “Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards.” Last modified: August 11, 2014.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/sustainability/corporate-average-fuel-economy- cafe-standards (accessed February 2021).
United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2020. Table P2. Primary Energy Production Estimates in Trillion Btu, 2018. Last modified: June 26, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/P2.pdf (accessed February 2021). ______. 2021a. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPCA1&f=M (accessed February 2021).
______. 2021b. “U.S. Energy Mapping System.” https://www.eia.gov/state/maps.php (accessed March 2021).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. “Trump Administration Announces One National Program Rule on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards.” https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-administration-announces-one-national- program-rule-federal-preemption-state-fuel (accessed February 2021). ______. 2021. “What is ENERGY STAR.” https://www.energystar.gov/about/history-0 (accessed February).
Geology and Soils
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.
Bramlette, M. N. 1946. The Monterey Formation of California and the Origin of its Siliceous Rocks.
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 212.
Dibblee and Minch 2006a. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_78100.htm .
Dibblee and Minch 2006b. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_78101.htm .
Hall, C.A. 1973. Geology of the Arroyo Grande 15’ Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California:
California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 24, scale 1:48,000.
Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-8
Paleobiology Database. 2021. Online fossil locality database. Available online:
https://www.paleobiodb.org/#/ .
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2021. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ .
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Sacramento, CA.
December 2008.
______. 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan Website. Updated June 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm (accessed September 2020). ______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed September 2020).
______. 2021. “ California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 “– 2021 Edition. Last modified: July 28, 2021. Retrieved from:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf (accessed December 2021).
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. “California Agricultural Production Statistics.” https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ (accessed September 2020).
California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-
change/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed September 2020).
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed September 2020).
ClimateWise. 2010. Integrated Climate Change Adaptation in San Luis Obispo County. https://climatewise.org/images/projects/slo-report-final.pdf (accessed May 2021).
EnergyCodeAce. 2019. “2019 Energy Code: Title 24, Part 6 Fact Sheet.” https://energycodeace.com/download/35133/file_path/fieldList/Whats%20New.2019%20N onresidential%20Code (accessed May 2021).
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. 2021. “EPA and NHTSA Seek Public Comment on Reconsideration of Prior Actions Concerning California’s Authority to Enforce Greenhouse Gas Standards and Mandate Zero Emission Vehicles.” https://www.gibsondunn.com/epa-and-nhtsa-seek- public-comment-on-reconsideration-of-prior-actions-concerning-californias-authority-to- enforce-greenhouse-gas-standards-and-mandate-zero-emission-vehicles/ (accessed May 2021).
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-9
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014a. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers - Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. ______. 2014b. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. ______. 2018. Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (accessed September 2020).
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017a. Play Bay Area 2040. Adopted July 26, 2017. https://www.planbayarea.org/plan-bay- area-2040 (accessed September 2020).
______. 2017b. Final Environmental Impact Report for Play Bay Area 2040. SCH#2016052041. July 2017. https://www.planbayarea.org/plan-bay-area-2040 (accessed September 2020).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2021. “Fact Sheet: SAFE Vehicles Rule.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/corporate-average-fuel-economy/safe-fact-sheet (accessed May 2021).
Parmesan, C. August 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change.
Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. City of Pismo Beach Climate Action Plan. May. http://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/43549/Climate-Action-Plan-May- 2014?bidId= (accessed May 2021).
______. 2020. Pismo Beach Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pismobeach/latest/pismo_ca/0-0-0-1 (accessed May 2021).
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2019. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://www.slocog.org/2019RTP (accessed May 2021).
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 2012. Retrieved from:
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.pdf .
State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed September 2020).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018. U. S. EPA #430-R-20-002. April 2020. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks- 1990-2018 (accessed July 2020).
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-10
World Meteorological Organization. 2013. A summary of current and climate change findings and figures: a WMO information note. March 2013.
https://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15892#.Wt9-Z8gvzIU (accessed September 2020).
______. 2020. “Greenhouse Gases.” https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus- areas/environment/greenhouse%20gases (accessed September 2020).
Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire
Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County. 2005. Airport Land Use Plan. Available at:
https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). CGS Regulatory Maps. August 12, 2019. Accessed August 2019.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=ce450e2f3d314d03bc250cb3f783457f California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA – San Luis Obispo County. November 21, 2007. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6797/fhszl_map40.pdf
______. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE – Pismo Beach. July 24, 2009. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5979/pismo_beach.pdf California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Accessed May 2019. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor database search. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=pismo+beach California Emergency Management Agency. 2009. SEMS Guidelines: Standardized Emergency Management System. Available at:
http://www.caloes.ca.gov/PlanningPreparednessSite/Documents/12%20SEMS%20Guideline s%20Complete.pdf
California Emergency Management Agency. 2011. California Interoperability Field Operations Guide (Cal-IFOG). Available at:
http://www.caloes.ca.gov/PublicSafetyCommunicationsSite/Documents/Cal- IFOG201185x11Final.pdf#search=mutual%20air%20%22region%20II%22 California Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Cortese List Data Resources. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021a. GeoTracker database search. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=pismo+beach# ______. 2021b. List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
County of San Luis Obispo. 2005. Last Revised April 2011. Tsunami Emergency Response Plan.
Available at: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Administrative- Office/Emergency-Management/Forms-Documents/General-Emergency-Plans/Tsunami- Response-Plan.aspx
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-11
______. 2016. Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Administrative-Office/Emergency- Management/Forms-Documents/General-Emergency-Plans/County-Emergency-Operations- Plan-(EOP).aspx
______. 2019. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Update. Public Review Draft.
October 2019. Accessed January 2020. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/ getattachment/51d4e524-34c4-4646-bcdc-cfa65ffe9595/San-Luis-Obispo-County-HMP- Public-Review-Draft-Base-Plan.aspx
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2021. Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning: Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit Application. March 24.
Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2014 HMP).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA.) 2021. “Search Results.” Superfund Enterprise Management System.
https://enviro.epa.gov/enviro/efsystemquery.sems?fac_search=primary_name&fac_value= &fac_search_type=Beginning&postal_code=&location_address=&add_search_type=Beginni ng2&city_name=pismo+beach&county_name=&state_code=&program_search=sems&repo rt=basic&page_no=1&output_sql_switch=TRUE&database_type=SEMS Hydrology and Water Quality
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2002. CALWATER: A Standardized Set of Watersheds [map]. Retrieved on May 17, 2021, from:
https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10287/calwater221_19_ada.pdf California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California Groundwater Update – Central Coast Hydrologic Region. Retrieved from:
https://www.water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_ground water__bulletin_118_-_update_2003_/bulletin118_3-cc.pdf ______. 2004. California’s Groudwater Bulletin 118. Central Coast Hydrologic Region, Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. California Ocean Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/docs/oceanplan2019.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan). June 2019. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan /docs/2019_basin_plan_r3_complete.pdf
City of Pismo Beach. 2011. Stormwater Management Program. August 2011. Retrieved from:
http://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/6597/01-Introduction-to-SWMP?bidId= County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works. 2021. Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin. Retrieved from: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public- Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management-Act-(SGMA)/Santa- Maria-River-Valley-Groundwater-Basin.aspx
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-12
County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. “Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Update.” Public Review Draft. October 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/ getattachment/51d4e524-34c4-4646-bcdc-cfa65ffe9595/San-Luis-Obispo-County-HMP- Public-Review-Draft-Base-Plan.aspx
Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) Technical Group. 2019. Northern Cities Management area, 2019 Annual Monitoring Report. Retrieved from:
https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/1893/AnnualRpt-NorthernCitiesMgmtArea- MonitoringRpt?bidId=
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLO County FCWCD). 2019. 2019 San Luis Obispo County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP).
Retrieved from: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Forms- Documents/Committees-Programs/Integrated-Regional-Water-Management- (IRWM)/IRWM-Plan/2019-IRWM-Plan/2019-IRWM-Plan.pdf
SLO Watershed Project. 2021. Watershed Maps and Data for San Luis Obispo County. Retrieved from: http://slowatershedproject.org/watersheds/san-luis-obispo-creek/ U.S Climate Data. 2021. Climate Pismo Beach – California. Retrieved from:
https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/pismo-beach/california/united-states/usca0872 Land Use and Planning
California Department of Education. 2021. 2019-20 Enrollment by Grade: Lucia Mar Unified Report (40-68759).
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=4068759&agglevel=distr ict&year=2019-20 (accessed March 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). 2020. Unit Strategic Fire Plan. May 2020. Available online: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/qhladr5b/2020-slu-fire-plan.pdf (accessed March 2021).
Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD). 2014. Facilities Master Plan. May 2014. Available online:
https://1.cdn.edl.io/kvr3lGOSOMSMIhLcFGsDUONd8bOZe46AXE3V9E2Sx9l1AJhk.pdf (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021. Bond Projects. https://www.luciamarschools.org/apps/pages/BondProjects (accessed March 2021).
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). 2021a. Common Core Data: Shell Beach Elementary School.
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&SchoolID=06230800352 9&ID=062308003529 (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021b. Common Core Data: Judkins Middle School. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=judkins+mid dle+school&SchoolType=1&SchoolType=2&SchoolType=3&SchoolType=4&SpecificSchlTypes =all&IncGrade=-1&LoGrade=-1&HiGrade=-1&ID=062308003522 (accessed March 2021).
Pismo Beach, City of. 2007. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. January 2007. Available online:
https://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/6576/Local-Hazard-Mitigation- Plan?bidId= (accessed March 2021).
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-13
______. 2014. City of Pismo Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Update. April 2014. Available online: https://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/01-General-Plan-?bidId= (accessed March 2021).
______. 2019. PBPD Annual Report. Available online:
https://accesspismo.pismobeach.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254620&dbid=0&repo=La serfiche&cr=1 (accessed March 2021).
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD). 2001. Clean Air Plan. December 2001. Available online: https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair- org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf (accessed March 2021).
Shell Beach Elementary School. 2019. Construction Improvements. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VflroVQDFnMRZcv6HQGm8bZ7A957wXvo/view (accessed March 2021).
Noise
Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County. 2005. Airport Land Use Plan. https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf (accessed March 2021).
______. 2007. Airport Land Use Plan for the Oceano County Airport. https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/OceanoALUP-final.pdf (accessed March 2021).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf (accessed March 2021).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed January 2021).
Crocker, Malcolm J., editor. 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book. ISBN 978-0-471- 39599-7. Wiley-VCH. October 2007.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2004. Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5. February. ______. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed January 2021).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
November 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed June 2020).
Kinsler, Lawrence E., Austin R. Frey, Alan B. Coppens, and James V. Sanders. 1999. Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH. December 1999.
Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. City of Pismo Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Program. Amended April 2014. https://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/01-General-Plan-?bidId= (accessed March 2021).
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-14
______. 2016. City of Pismo Beach Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study. August. http://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/47888/Transportation-Model-and- Circulation-Study_Final-Report-82316 (accessed March 2021). ______. 2018. City of Pismo Beach General Plan Circulation Element. June. http://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/50888/Circulation-Element-June-5- 2018?bidId= (accessed April 2021).
______. 2020. Pismo Beach Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/pismobeach/latest/pismo_ca/0-0-0-1 (accessed March 2021).
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2019. 2019 Regional Transportation Plan. https://www.slocog.org/2019RTP (accessed March 2021).
Population and Housing
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available online:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed February 2021)
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2019. 2019 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan. https://www.slocog.org/programs/housing (accessed March 2021) San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. 2017. 2050 Regional Growth Forecast for San Luis Obispo County: Population, Housing, and Employment Projections. Prepared by Beacon Economics and SLOCOG staff. June 2017, revised December 2018.
https://www.slocog.org/programs/data-services/regional-growth-forecast (accessed March 2021).
United States Census Bureau. 2020. Definitions and Explanations. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf (accessed February 2021).
Public Services and Recreation
California Department of Education. Dataquest. 2021. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ (accessed March 2021).
California Department of General Services. 2008. Enrollment Certification/Projection. https://www.dgsapps.dgs.ca.gov/OPSC/ab1014/sab50-01instructions.pdf (accessed March 2021).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021a. Station 64. https://calfireslo.org/station-64/ (accessed March 2021). ______. 2021b. Station 63. https://calfireslo.org/station-63/ (accessed March 2021).
LMUSD. 2014. Facilities Master Plans.
https://www.luciamarschools.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=888386&type=d&pREC_I D=1238639 (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021. Shell Beach Elementary School: Construction Improvements. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VflroVQDFnMRZcv6HQGm8bZ7A957wXvo/view (accessed March 2021).
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-15
National Center for Education Statistics.2021a. Judkins Middle. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&InstName=judkins+mid dle+school&SchoolType=1&SchoolType=2&SchoolType=3&SchoolType=4&SpecificSchlTypes =all&IncGrade=-1&LoGrade=-1&HiGrade=-1&ID=062308003522 (accessed March 2021). ______. 2021b. Shell Beach Elementary.
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0623080&ID =062308003529 (accessed March 2021).
Pismo Beach, City of. 2014. General Plan and Local Coastal Program. April 2014. https://pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/247/01-General-Plan-?bidId= (accessed March 2021).
______. 2019. Pismo Beach Police Department: 2019 Annual Report. https://accesspismo.pismobeach.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254620&dbid=0&repo=La serfiche&cr=1 (accessed March 2021)
______. 2021. Fire. https://www.pismobeach.org/67/Fire (accessed March 2021).
San Luis Obispo, County of. 2021. Shell Beach Library.
https://www.slolibrary.org/index.php/about/locations/shell-beach-library (accessed March 2021).
Transportation
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). December 2002. “Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies.”
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/guide_preparation_traffic_impact_studies_caltrans.pdf .
Accessed November 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). February 2010. “Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan.” https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019- 03/CompleteStreets_IP03-10-10.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). July 2020. “Highway Design Manual.” Chapter 1000 – BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/design/documents/chp1000-a11y.pdf. Accessed November 2021. ______. 2021. Active Transportation Plan. Available at: https://www.catplan.org/district-5 ______. 2021. US 101 Santa Maria to San Luis Obispo Multimodal Corridor Plan Available at:
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-5/district-5-current-projects/us-101- santa- maria-san-luis-obispo-multimodal-corridor-plan
______. 2021. Director’s Policy on Complete Streets (DP-37). Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/sustainability/documents/dp-37- complete-streets-a11y.pdf California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). December 2018. “Technical Guidance on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.” https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). 2018. “OTS Crash Rankings Results.” https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf- year=2018&wpv-wpcf-city_county=Pismo+Beach&wpv_filter_submit=Submit. Accessed November 2021.
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-16
Pismo Beach City Council. June 2010. “Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.” https://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/6972/FINAL-Bicycle-and-Pedestrian- Master-Plan?bidId=. Accessed November 2021.
Pismo Beach. March 2013. “Pismo Beach Complete Streets Master Plan.” https://accesspismo.pismobeach.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=249995&page=1& cr=1. Accessed November 2021.
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). December 2017. “Route 10 Stops.” https://www.slorta.org/schedules-fares/route-10/#stops . Accessed November 2021.
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). January 2020. “All Route Stops.” http://www.slorta.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/SCT-schedule-brochure-Jan-2020- small.pdf. Accessed November 2021.
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA). January 2021. “Avila-Pismo Beach Trolley.” http://www.slorta.org/schedules-fares/avila-trolley/ . Accessed November 2021.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). June 2019. “2019 Regional Transportation Plan.” https://www.dropbox.com/s/oc6i8wshikuirsh/__FINAL%202019%20RTP.pdf?dl=0/ .
Accessed November 2021.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2021. “2023-2045 Regional Transportation Plan.” https://slocog.org/programs/regional-planning/2023-rtp . Accessed November 2021.
United States Census Bureau. 2019. “Commuting Characteristics.” TableID: S0801. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=san%20luis%20obispo%20county&t=Commuting&g =1600000US0657414&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S0801. Accessed November 2021.
Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility and Alternative Daily Cover by Facility.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacilit y (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021. SWIS Facility: Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc. (40-AA-004). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1509?siteID=3171 (accessed March 2021).
California Energy Commission [CEC]. 2019. 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/energy-efficiency-existing- buildings (accessed March 2021).
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020. 2020 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf (accessed March 2021).
Central Coast Blue. 2021a. Current Water Supply. https://centralcoastblue.com/our- project/current-water-supply/ (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021b. Project Overview. https://centralcoastblue.com/our-project/project-overview/ (accessed March 2021).
References
Final Environmental Impact Report 8-17
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2021. Central Coast Stormwater Program. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ (accessed March 2021).
Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA). 2021. About Us. https://www.ccwa.com/about-us (accessed March 2021).
Grover Beach, City of. 2019. Northern Cities Management Area: 2019 Annual Monitoring Report.
Available online: https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/1893/AnnualRpt- NorthernCitiesMgmtArea-MonitoringRpt?bidId= (accessed March 2021).
Integrated Waste Management Area. 1994. Joint Powers Agreement. Available online:
https://www.iwma.com/wp-
content/uploads/recyclist/userfiles/20200707133739467_1.pdf (accessed March 2021).
Northern Cities Management Area. 2014. Final Draft Strategic Plan. June 2014. Available online:
http://www.pismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/43833/NCMA-Strategic-Plan_Final- Draft?bidId= (accessed March 2021).
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E). 2020. Integrated Resource Plan 2020. September. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/for-our-business-partners/energy- supply/integrated-resource-planning/2020-PGE-Integrated-Resource-Plan.pdf (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021. “Company Profile.” https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/profile/profile.page (accessed March 2021).
Pismo Beach, City of. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Available online:
https://accesspismo.pismobeach.org/WebLink/PDF10/e4b8f4ba-9530-494e-a2e8- 47e10dd2b1a6/194827 (accessed March 2021).
______. 2019. 2019 Pismo Beach Water System: Consumer Confidence Report. https://accesspismo.pismobeach.org/WebLink/PDF10/54401de1-02a3-45e5-a3bc- 8cf3a1a05709/257166 (accessed March 2021).
______. 2020. City of Pismo Beach 2020-2028 Housing Element Update. June 2020. Available online:
http://ca-pismobeach.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/53948/Public-Draft-2020-2028- Pismo-Beach-Housing-Element?bidId= (accessed March 2021). ______. 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update RFP. http://ca- pismobeach.civicplus.com/bids.aspx?bidID=93 (accessed March 2021). ______. 2021b. Residential Facts. https://www.pismobeach.org/508/Residential-Facts (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021c. Stormwater Management. https://pismobeach.org/505/Stormwater-Management (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021d. Water Conservation. https://www.pismobeach.org/424/Water-Conservation (accessed March 2021).
San Luis Obispo, County of. 2014. Low Reservoir Response Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 3. December 2014. Available online:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Forms-Documents/Committees- Programs/Flood-Control-Zones/Zone-3-Lopez-Water-Project/Plans-Reports/2014-Low- Reservoir-Response-Plan.pdf (accessed March 2021).
City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update
8-18
______. 2019. San Luis Obispo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (FCWCD), Zone 3: Lopez Water Treatment Plant. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public- Works/Forms-Documents/Committees-Programs/Flood-Control-Zones/Zone-3-Lopez- Water-Project/Plans-Reports/2019-Zone-3-(Lopez-Water-Project)-Information-Broc.pdf (accessed March 2021).
______. 2021. Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin. https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees- Programs/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management-Act-(SGMA)/Santa-Maria-River-Valley- Groundwater-Basin.aspx (accessed March 2021).
Southern California Gas. 2013. Southern California Gas Company’s Service Territory. https://www.socalgas.com/documents/news-room/fact-sheets/ServiceTerritory.pdf (accessed March 2020).
Water Education Foundation. 2021. California Aqueduct.
https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/california-aqueduct (accessed March 2021).
8.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of Pismo Beach, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Richard Daulton, Principal
Nicole West, Project Manager
Chris Bersbach, Supervising Environmental Planner
Aaron Riojas, Environmental Planner
Elizabeth Wilson, Environmental Planner
Jorge Mendieta, Archeologist
Kari Zajac, Senior Planner
Katherine Green, Environmental Planner
Leslie Trejo, Environmental Planner
Mattie Magers, Environmental Planner
Taylor Freeman, Environmental Planner
Annette Tran, GIS Specialist
Allysen Valencia, GIS Specialist
Tracy Popiel, GIS Specialist