Pismo Beach City Council
May 19, 2026

Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal
Plan Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2021010158
prepared by
City of Pismo Beach
Community Development Department
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449
Contact: Scot Graham, Community Development Director
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
March 2026

Table of Contents

Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Synopsis ......................................................................................................................... ES-1 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... ES-3 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ ES-3 Areas of Known Controversy ..................................................................................................... ES-4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ ES-5 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background..................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Overview of the GP/LCP Update ..................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 Environmental Scoping ................................................................................................... 1-5

1.5 EIR Content ..................................................................................................................... 1-7

1.6 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-7

1.7 Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................................................. 1-8

1.8 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-9 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Purpose of the GP/LCP Update ....................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Proponent/Lead Agency ..................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.3.1 Geographic Location ....................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.2 Existing Land Form and Pattern ...................................................................... 2-3

2.3.3 Neighborhood Planning Areas ........................................................................ 2-8

2.3.4 Access and Transportation Network ............................................................ 2-13

2.4 Characteristics of the GP/LCP Update .......................................................................... 2-14

2.4.1 Objectives of the GP/LCP Update ................................................................. 2-14

2.4.2 GP/LCP Update Organization ........................................................................ 2-16

2.4.3 GP/LCP Update Goals ................................................................................... 2-16

2.4.4 General Plan Land Use Designations and Density ........................................ 2-18

2.4.5 Key Updates .................................................................................................. 2-22

2.4.6 City Growth/General Plan Buildout .............................................................. 2-22

2.5 Zoning Code and Coastal Implementation Plan Amendments ..................................... 2-23

2.6 Required Discretionary Approvals ................................................................................ 2-24 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Physical Setting ............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 General Geographic Setting............................................................................ 3-1

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ii

3.2.2 Geologic Setting .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.3 Hydrologic Setting .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.4 Natural Setting ................................................................................................ 3-2

3.2.5 Climate ............................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3 Baseline and Cumulative Project Setting ........................................................................ 3-2

3.3.1 EIR Baseline..................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.2 Approach for Impact Analysis ......................................................................... 3-3

3.3.3 Approach for Cumulative Analysis .................................................................. 3-4 4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-4

4.1.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.1-7

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-15

4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-4

4.2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.2-6

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.2-23

4.3 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.3-13

4.3.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.3-17

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.3-35

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources......................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-5

4.4.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.4-7

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.4-15

4.5 Energy .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-4

4.5.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.5-10

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.5-18

4.6 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-9

4.6.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.6-13

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.6-21

Table of Contents

Final Environmental Impact Report iii

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change ............................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-6

4.7.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.7-11

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.7-18

4.8 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire ............................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-6

4.8.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.8-11

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.8-21

4.9 Hydrology/Water Quality ............................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Setting .......................................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.9-12

4.9.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.9-19

4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.9-32

4.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-4

4.10.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.10-8

4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.10-13

4.11 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................... 4.11-10

4.11.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.11-16

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.11-29

4.12 Population and Housing ............................................................................................. 4.12-1

4.12.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-2

4.12.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.12-5

4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.12-9

4.13 Public Services and Recreation .................................................................................. 4.13-1

4.13.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.13-1

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-6

4.13.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.13-9

4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.13-14

4.14 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.14-1

4.14.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.14-1

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-7

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

iv

4.14.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.14-10

4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.14-23

4.15 Utilities/System Services ............................................................................................ 4.15-1

4.15.1 Setting ........................................................................................................ 4.15-1

4.15.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.15-6

4.15.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.15-14

4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.15-22

4.16 Less Than Significant Environmental Effects .............................................................. 4.16-1

4.16.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources.......................................................... 4.16-1

4.16.2 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... 4.16-2 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Growth Inducement ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1.1 Population and Economic Growth .................................................................. 5-1

5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth .................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................................................. 5-2 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternatives Development and Screening Process ......................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ............................................................ 6-1

6.1.2 GP/LCP Update Alternatives ........................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Continue Using 1992 General Plan and Local Coastal Plan .................................................................................................... 6-3

6.2.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Buildout ................................................ 6-12

6.2.3 Alternative 3: Reduced Commercial Floor Area Ratio .................................. 6-18

6.2.4 Alternative 4: Proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Update with Expanded Sphere of Influence Development ............................................... 6-25

6.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-32 7 Responses to Comments ............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Public Comments Received ............................................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Response to Comments .................................................................................................. 7-2 8 References .................................................................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 8-18

Table of Contents

Final Environmental Impact Report v
Tables
Table ES-1 GP/LCP Update Projected Development at Full Buildout ....................................... ES-2 Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts .................................................................................................................... ES-6 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response ........................................................................... 1-6 Table 2-1 Existing Development by Neighborhood Planning Area .......................................... 2-8 Table 2-2 Relationship Between GP/LCP Update Planning Areas and 1992 General Plan Planning Areas .......................................................................................................... 2-9 Table 2-3 GP/LCP Update Goals ............................................................................................. 2-17 Table 2-4 Land Use Designations ........................................................................................... 2-19 Table 2-5 Land Use Density/Intensity Limits .......................................................................... 2-20 Table 2-6 GP/LCP Update Projected Development at Full Buildout ...................................... 2-22 Table 3-1 Population and Housing Projections of Cumulative Analysis Area, 2019-2040 ....... 3-5 Table 4.2-1 Climatic Conditions in Pismo Beach ...................................................................... 4.2-1 Table 4.2-2 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................... 4.2-2 Table 4.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Data ...................................................................................... 4.2-3 Table 4.2-4 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds .................................... 4.2-8 Table 4.2-5 SLOAPCD Construction Emissions Significance Thresholds ................................... 4.2-8 Table 4.2-6 GP/LCP Update Consistency with Applicable 2001 CAP Land Use and Transportation Control Measures ....................................................................... 4.2-10 Table 4.2-7 Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses in California .................. 4.2-20 Table 4.5-1 2019 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption ................................................... 4.5-3 Table 4.5-2 2019 Annual Electricity Consumption ................................................................... 4.5-3 Table 4.5-3 2019 Annual Natural Gas Consumption ................................................................ 4.5-4 Table 4.5-4 Projected 2040 Annual Natural Gas and Electricity Consumption in Pismo Beach ................................................................................................................... 4.5-12 Table 4.5-5 Direct Transportation Energy Use in Pismo Beach .............................................. 4.5-15 Table 4.6-1 Geologic Units in the City of Pismo Beach............................................................. 4.6-8 Table 4.7-1 GHG Performance Threshold Determination ...................................................... 4.7-12 Table 4.7-2 GP/LCP Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................ 4.7-13 Table 4.9-1 Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters in the City ...................................................... 4.9-7 Table 4.10-1 Pismo Beach Existing On-The-Ground Land Use Distribution ............................. 4.10-2 Table 4.10-2 GP/LCP Update Goals .......................................................................................... 4.10-4 Table 4.10-3 Zoning Districts that Apply to Property within the City of Pismo Beach ............. 4.10-8 Table 4.10-4 GP/LCP Update Land Use Consistency with the SLOCOG 2019 RTP ................. 4.10-11 Table 4.11-1 Short-Term Sound Level Measurements ............................................................. 4.11-8 Table 4.11-2 Long-Term Sound Level Measurements .............................................................. 4.11-9 Table 4.11-3 Caltrans Criteria for Vibration Annoyance ........................................................ 4.11-12 Table 4.11-4 Caltrans Criteria for Vibration Damage ............................................................. 4.11-12 Table 4.11-5 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Development ....................................... 4.11-13

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

vi
Table 4.11-6 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses: Stationary Noise Sources1 .................................................................................................. 4.11-13 Table 4.11-7 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Noise Sensitive Users:

Transportation Noise Sources ........................................................................... 4.11-14 Table 4.11-8 Exterior Noise Limits (Levels Not to be Exceeded More than 30 Minutes in Any Hour) ........................................................................................................... 4.11-15 Table 4.11-9 Construction Noise Limits at Residential Properties ......................................... 4.11-16 Table 4.11-10 Noise Levels Generated by Common Construction Equipment ........................ 4.11-19 Table 4.11-11 Existing and 2040 Roadway Noise Contours ..................................................... 4.11-22 Table 4.11-12 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment at Noise-Sensitive Receivers ..... 4.11-28 Table 4.12-1 Population Growth in the City, County, and State .............................................. 4.12-1 Table 4.12-2 Housing Inventory ............................................................................................... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-3 Household Size in the City, County, and State .................................................... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-4 Regional Housing Needs Assessment 2014-2019 ................................................ 4.12-3 Table 4.12-5 Population and Housing Estimates ...................................................................... 4.12-6 Table 4.13-1 2019-2020 Enrollment for LMUSD Schools in Pismo Beach ................................ 4.13-3 Table 4.13-2 Enrollment Trends for SLCUSD Schools in Pismo Beach...................................... 4.13-3 Table 4.13-3 Projection of Students from New Residential Development ............................ 4.13-11 Table 4.14-1 Travel Mode Comparison for Work Trips ............................................................ 4.14-6 Table 4.14-2 GP/LCP Update Consistency with Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ............ 4.14-12 Table 4.14-3 Total Regional VMT Results Summary ............................................................... 4.14-13 Table 4.14-4 Regional Residential VMT Results Per Capita Summary ................................... 4.14-14 Table 4.14-5 Regional Non-Residential/Work VMT Results Per Employee Summary ........... 4.14-14 Table 4.15-1 Water Supply and Demand – Actual (2015) and Projected ................................ 4.15-4 Table 4.15-2 Water Supply and Demand Comparison – Multiple Dry Years ......................... 4.15-15 Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives’ Buildout Characteristics ................................. 6-2 Table 6-2 Total Regional Annual VMT Results Summary ....................................................... 6-11 Table 6-3 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 6-33 Table 7-1 Public Comments Received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR ................ 7-1 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process .............................................................................. 1-11 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2 Pismo Beach City Limits and Coastal Zone Boundary ............................................... 2-5 Figure 2-3 Pismo Beach City Limits and Sphere of Influence .................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-4 Existing Land Use Pattern ......................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-5 Neighborhood Planning Areas ................................................................................ 2-10 Figure 2-6 Proposed Land Use Designations ........................................................................... 2-21 Figure 4.1-1 Scenic Vistas and Roadways .................................................................................. 4.1-2 Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in Pismo Beach ......................... 4.3-2

Table of Contents

Final Environmental Impact Report vii
Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands in Pismo Beach ...................................................................................... 4.3-7 Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat in Pismo Beach............................................................................ 4.3-10 Figure 4.6-1 Regional Fault Lines ............................................................................................... 4.6-3 Figure 4.6-2 Liquefaction Susceptibility ..................................................................................... 4.6-4 Figure 4.6-3 Landslide Susceptibility ......................................................................................... 4.6-5 Figure 4.6-4 Geologic Units in the City of Pismo Beach............................................................. 4.6-7 Figure 4.8-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones .................................................................................... 4.8-4 Figure 4.9-1 Watersheds............................................................................................................ 4.9-2 Figure 4.9-2 Surface Waters ...................................................................................................... 4.9-4 Figure 4.9-3 Groundwater Basins .............................................................................................. 4.9-5 Figure 4.9-4 Flood Hazard Zones ............................................................................................... 4.9-9 Figure 4.9-5 Tsunami Inundation Zones .................................................................................. 4.9-10 Figure 4.9-6 Dam Inundation Zones ........................................................................................ 4.9-11 Figure 4.11-1 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses and Major Noise Sources .......................................... 4.11-4 Figure 4.11-2 Noise-Measurement Locations ........................................................................... 4.11-7 Figure 4.11-3 Existing Noise Contours ..................................................................................... 4.11-11 Figure 4.11-4 2040 Noise Contours ......................................................................................... 4.11-21 Figure 4.13-1 Open Space and Conservation Areas .................................................................. 4.13-5 Figure 4.14-1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................... 4.14-4 Figure 4.14-2 Existing Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................... 4.14-5 Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
Appendix B Buildout Methodology
Appendix C Noise Element Technical Background Report
Appendix D Special Status Species Tables
Appendix E Energy Calculations
Appendix F Greenhouse Gas Modeling
Appendix G Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum
Appendix H Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study Appendix I Comment Letters Recieved

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

viii

This page intentionally left blank.

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed City of Pismo Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update. This section of the EIR summarizes the characteristics of, alternatives to, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed GP/LCP Update.

Project Synopsis
Lead Agency Contact Person
Matt Downing, Community Development Director
City of Pismo Beach
Community Development Department
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, California 93449
(805) 773-4658
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the GP/LCP Update.

The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Section 2.0, Project Description.

Project Characteristics
The project analyzed in this EIR is the proposed City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update, which includes updates to the Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation Elements of the City’s 1992 GP/LCP. The GP/LCP Update does not include updates to the Parks, Recreation, and Access Element , Safety Element, and Housing Element. The Facilities Element is being eliminated and incorporated into other elements. The Design Element is being eliminated and incorporated into the Land Use Element. The Growth Management Element is being removed due to updates to California Housing Element Law and implementation of Senate Bill 330.

With the GP/LCP Update, the City GP/LCP will consist of the following seven elements: 1) Circulation, 2) Conservation and Open Space, 3) Housing, 4) Land Use, 5) Noise, 6) Parks, Recreation, and Access and 7) Safety.

The GP/LCP Update presents the community’s vision for Pismo Beach through the GP/LCP horizon (year 2040). The land use classifications included in the GP/LCP define the basic categories of land use allowed in the City and are the basis for the zoning districts established in the City Municipal Code, which contain more specific regulations and standards governing development on individual properties.

Table ES-1 identifies the development capacity associated with the planned distribution of land uses described in the Land Use Element and summarizes the maximum residential and nonresidential levels of development that could occur from implementation of land use policies established by the GP/LCP Update.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-2
Table ES-1 GP/LCP Update Projected Development at Full Buildout Land Use
Number of Vacant
or Underutilized
Parcels
Potential
Increase in
Dwelling Units
Potential Increase in
Non-Residential
Building Area (sf)
Potential
Increase in
Population
Potential
Increase in Jobs
Commercial 42 – 420,928 – 242
Central Commercial 26 – 248,000 – 33
High Density Residential 139 162 – 289 -12
Mixed Use 48 722 108,000 1,221 272
Medium Density
Residential
32 228 – 471 –
Public/Semi Public 1 -1 6,340 -2 10
Total 288 1,111 783,268 1,979 545
Zoning Code and Coastal Implementation Plan Amendments
To maintain consistency with the GP/LCP Update, the project includes a Zoning Code Update which includes the Coastal Implementation Plan. Amendments included as part of the project include:
 Updating the allowed uses in all zones as necessary for consistency with the General Plan Land Use Designations.
 Establishing new zoning district(s) as necessary to implement the GP/LCP Update.  Updating other development standards as necessary to implement the GP/LCP Update. This will include maximum height, setbacks, design standards and other standards.  Updating administration and permitting to integrate coastal permit processes. Additional coastal-specific issues to be addressed include:
 Parking and transportation demand management
 Coastal access, beach use, and special events
 Visitor-serving uses and tourism
 Sea-level rise and coastal resilience
 Stormwater management and water quality
The Zoning Code Update also addresses other issues, such as neighborhood compatibility and economic development, consistent with direction in the GP/LCP Update.

Required Discretionary Approvals
Following recommendations from the Planning Commission, the Pismo Beach City Council will need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the project:
 Certify the Final PEIR
 Adopt the proposed GP/LCP Update
 Adopt the Zoning Code Update
 Adopt the Coastal Implementation Plan
 Adopt the Coastal Land Use Plan

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-3
The California Coastal Commission will also need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the project:
 Certify the GP/LCP Update
 Certify the Zoning Code Update
 Certify the Coastal Implementation Plan
 Certify the Coastal Land Use Plan
Project Objectives
The GP/LCP Update is intended to function as a policy document to guide land use decisions within the City through the year 2040, consistent with the community vision and guiding principles. The vision for the city was developed with extensive community input. Based on this community input and in recognition of the state’s planning priorities, a vision and values supporting the vision for the community were developed. The vision and guiding principles of the GP/LCP Update, which are also the project objectives, are contained in the Land Use Element and are detailed in Section 2, Project Description.

A key objective of the GP/LCP Update is to ensure that the City’s land use plan meets the fair share housing needs allocation established in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP).

Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed GP/LCP Update that could feasibly achieve similar objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse impacts associated with the GP/LCP Update.

The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
 Alternative 1: No Project/Continue Using 1992 General Plan and Local Coastal Plan. 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.
 Alternative 2: Reduced Residential Buildout. Under the Reduced Residential Buildout Alternative, the maximum residential buildout that would occur within the 2040 planning horizon would be reduced by 50% for all residential land use designations (low-density, medium-density, high density, very high-density, and mobile home park). Under Alternative 2, 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.
 Alternative 3: Reduced Commercial Floor Area Ratio. 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 FAR for new Central Commercial land use designations would be reduced from 1.25 to 1.0 to reduce commercial density. Under

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-4
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.
 Alternative 4: Proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Update with Expanded Sphere of Influence Development. Under this alternative, the project area would include expanded development potential within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), which includes land in Price Canyon and along Oak Park Boulevard and a small area along Mattie Road. This alternative assumes up to 10% of the City’s 1,282 acres of SOI area 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. 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.

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. Based on the information presented in the EIR, Alternative 2 (Reduced Residential Buildout) 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 due to the overall reduction in residential development that would result in consistency with the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP). However, due to the increase local and regional VMT compared to existing conditions, project-level and cumulative transportation impacts under Alternative 2 would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, reducing the overall residential development in Pismo Beach would be inconsistent with the vision and objectives of the GP/LCP Update because it would fail 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. Refer to Section 7.0, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

Areas of Known Controversy
The City received two responses to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).

The comment letters are included in Appendix A and summarized in Table 1-1 in Chapter 1.0, introduction. The comment letters raise concerns about several environmental topics including transportation impacts (such as vehicle miles traveled [VMT]), climate change, air contaminant emission, and project alternatives. These topics are addressed in the analysis contained in the various subsections of Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2 summarizes the identified environmental impacts for each issue area studied in the EIR, required mitigation measures (if any), and the level of significance after mitigation.

The City of Pismo Beach determined that there was no substantial evidence that the project would cause or otherwise result in significant environmental effects in the resource areas of agricultural resources and mineral resources. The substantiation for determining that these issues would result in no impact is described in Section 6, Effects Found to be Less than Significant.

As detailed in Table ES-2 below, impacts that were determined to be less than significant include:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality (exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and odors)  Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services and Recreation
 Transportation (conflict with circulation programs, plans, or ordinances; increased hazards due to design features; and inadequate emergency access)
 Utilities and Service Systems
Impacts that were determined to be less than significant with mitigation included:
 Air Quality (cumulative net increase in criteria pollutants) Impacts that were determined to be significant and unavoidable and would require a statement of overriding considerations to be made per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved include:
 Air Quality (project-level and cumulative impacts related to conflict with an air quality plan)  Transportation (project-level and cumulative VMT impacts)

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-6
Table ES-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics
AES-1. Compliance with the GP/LCP Update Policies, Zoning Code, Downtown Strategic Plan, and the Shell Beach Design Standards and Guidelines would protect visual and aesthetic resources in the City from potential aesthetic impacts resulting from development facilitated by the General Plan/ LCP Update. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
AES-2. Compliance with existing standards and GP/LCP Update goals, policies, and actions would ensure that new development and redevelopment complements the existing visual character and quality of Pismo Beach, and does not conflict with zoning and regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on visual character and quality.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
AES-3. New development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be subject to existing regulations in the City’s Zoning Code, and GP/LCP Update Policies, to protect skyward nighttime views and to lessen or prevent glare. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact associated with new sources of light and glare.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The cumulative impacts associated with changes in the visual environment would not be significant, and the GP/LCP Update’s contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Air Quality
AQ-1. The GP/LCP Update would result in an increase in projected population that would exceed the 2001 Clean Air Plan projections for Pismo Beach, which would produce long- term operational criteria pollutant emissions beyond those planned for the region. This inconsistency with the SLOAPCD Clear Air Plan would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

No feasible mitigation strategies are available to reduce this impact, beyond the proposed GP/LCP Update policy
framework.

Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-2. Buildout of the GP/LCP Update would result in short-term emissions of criteria pollutants. Construction emissions from future projects in the planning area would be quantified once project details are known and evaluated for potential impacts in accordance with SLOAPCD guidance. SLOAPCD provides standard emissions reduction measures for construction emissions impacts which are included as required mitigation.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation AQ-1 Standard Mitigation for Construction Equipment.

Proponents of individual land use projects, or other projects requiring grading or building permits, shall require
construction contractors to incorporate the following
standard mitigation measures, as applicable, to reduce ROG, NOX, and DPM emissions from construction equipment.

Mitigation measures shall be listed on project construction plans and the project proponent shall perform periodic site Less than
Significant

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
inspections during construction to ensure that mitigation measures are being implemented.
 Maintain all construction equipment in proper condition according to manufacturer’s specifications
 Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road)
 Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State off-road Regulation
 Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty
diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road
Regulation
 Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g.
captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by
proving alternative compliance
 All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the
designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit
 When feasible for project-specific occasions, diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted  When feasible for project specific occasions, staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors
 Electrify equipment when feasible
 Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible
 Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
AQ-3. The GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element includes policies intended to minimize adverse effects associated with TACs through local actions and interagency coordination. The GP/LCP Update would not generate levels of traffic that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or result in new development that would expose sensitive receptors to hazards associated with naturally occurring asbestos. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
AQ-4. Implementation of the GP/LCP Update would not create objectionable odors that would impact a substantial number of people. Future development in Pismo Beach would be required to comply with SLOAPCD regulations prohibiting nuisance emissions (including odors). This would be a less than significant impact No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. Buildout of the GP/LCP Update would result in an increase of population growth that exceeds the population projections used in the most recent SLOAPCD CAP for the same area. The population increase would result in individual development projects that may exceed regulatory thresholds. The 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is intended to bring the County into attainment of the State ozone standard. Because the GP/LCP Update would be inconsistent with the CAP, the GP/LCP Update’s contribution to cumulative regional air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The GP/LCP Update includes an increase of commercial development and regional VMT.

This could potentially increase emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and odor nuisances in the region and potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, the GP/LCP Update includes goals, policies, and actions to minimize these effects. Individual project development may require implementation of project-specific mitigation measures to reduce pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors or nuisance odors.

No feasible mitigation strategies are available to reduce this impact, beyond the proposed GP/LCP Update policy
framework.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Biological Resources
BIO-1. New development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update could result in isolated impacts to habitat for special-status species and impacts to migratory bird nest sites. with compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of GP/LCP Update Policies, impacts with compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of GP/LCP Update Policies would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
BIO-2. The GP/LCP Update would facilitate development that could result in construction within riparian habitat, and direct placement of fill in wetlands. However, with compliance with existing regulations, and implementation of GP/LCP Update Policies potential impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
BIO-3. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP could result in construction within streams and associated riparian zones that serve as wildlife movement corridors. However, with implementation of GP/LCP Update policies preserving streams, wetlands, and wildlife corridors, as well as open space, impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
BIO-4. Development facilitated by the GP/ LCP Update may result in the removal of trees.

However, the GP/LCP policies require new development to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance. With Adherence to the Tree Ordinance, as well as other applicable City codes, impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
BIO-5. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. This impact would be less that significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. Buildout of the GP/LCP Update would have incremental contribution to cumulative impacts associated with biological resources, however the impacts to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
CR-1. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update has the potential to impact historical resources. Implementation of applicable GP/LCP Update actions, state and federal regulations, and the Pismo Beach Municipal Code would minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts to historical resources. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
CR-2. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update has the potential to impact unique archaeological resources. Implementation of applicable GP/LCP Update goals, state and federal regulations, and the Pismo Beach Municipal Code would minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts to archaeological resources. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
CR-3. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update has the potential to adversely affect previously unknown human burials, but would be required to adhere to existing regulations regarding the treatment of human remains. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
CR-4. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update may involve excavation, which has the potential to impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. Impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Cumulative. Compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of GP/LCP Update goals and policies would minimize cumulative impacts to cultural resources, and includes policy language and actions to address potential impacts to cultural resources on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, cumulative impacts to such resources would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Energy
E-1. Construction and operation of future development under the GP/LCP Update would require temporary and long-term consumption of energy resources. However, buildout of the GP/LCP Update would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
E-2. The GP/LCP Update would be consistent with the energy efficiency and renewable energy policies of the City of Pismo Beach’s Climate Action Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. the GP/LCP Update would not be expected to contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in energy demand, result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or result in the need for construction of new major facilities or substantial alteration of existing facilities to meet projected energy demands and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Geology and Soils
GEO-1. Construction of new buildings under the GP/LCP Update could result in would not exacerbate seismic hazards, but improperly constructed buildings may exacerbate landslide risk. Adherence to requirements of the California Building Code and implementation of goals and policies of the existing Safety Element would minimize the potential for loss, injury, or death following a seismic event, landslide, liquefaction, or other geologic hazards. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
GEO-2. Construction of new development under the GP/LCP Update would include ground disturbance that would result in loose or exposed soil that could be eroded by wind or during a storm event, resulting in the loss of topsoil. Compliance with applicable regulations, including the Clean Water Act, and implementation of goals and policies of the GP/LCP Update and existing Safety Element would minimize the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil and would ensure this impact would be less than significant No mitigation measures are required. N/A
GEO-3. New development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would occur where existing sewer systems are in place, minimizing the need for development of new wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact to soils that are incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
GEO-4. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan has the potential to result in impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. Cumulative impacts related to geology, paleontology, soils, and seismicity would be less than significant, and the GP/LCP Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative geology, paleontology, soils, or seismicity impacts.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1. Buildout of the GP/LCP Update would result in new GHG emissions that may exceed applicable GHG reduction targets established by SB 32. The GP/LCP Update identifies policies that would reduce GHG emissions, including setting reduction targets consistent with statewide GHG reduction goals and updating the climate action plan to ensure future development is consistent with statewide targets. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. New individual development projects in Pismo Beach could result in GHG emissions that would be inconsistent with statewide per capita emissions goals established in the 2017 Scoping Plan and may exceed applicable SLOAPCD or City thresholds on a project-by-project basis. However, the GP/LCP Update would establish GHG reduction goals consistent with the State’s 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, and the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with regional and State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update’s contribution to cumulative GHG and climate change impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfire
HAZ-1. Implementation of the GP/LCP Update could result in an incremental increase of the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling, transport, disposal, and storage of hazardous materials and adherence to existing Safety Element policies would minimize the risk of spills and the public’s potential exposure to these substances and reduce the risk of adverse impacts of hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
HAZ-2. New development of residential and commercial uses facilitated by the GP/LCP Update could result in increased use and storage of hazardous materials within one quarter mile of existing schools. compliance with regulatory requirements of the San Luis Obispo County EHS and existing applicable state and federal regulations would ensure that risks from hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste near existing or proposed schools would remain less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
HAZ-3. Implementation of the GP/LCP Update could result in development of sites contaminated with hazardous materials. However, compliance with applicable regulations relating to site cleanup and adherence to the existing Safety Element policies would minimize the impacts related to development on listed contaminated site. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
HAZ-4. Population growth and increased development in coastal areas as a result of the GP/LCP Update could impact evacuation routes in the event of a coastal hazard or radiation hazard event in the City. Proposed policies and mapped evacuation routes in the GP/LCP Update would ensure effective emergency response following a natural or human caused disaster. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not result in interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
HAZ-5. The City includes a designated very high fire hazard area and is adjacent to fire hazard areas in the County. Goals and policies included in the existing Safety Element would minimize exposure of people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildfire and wildland fires. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. Cumulative impacts related to the transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, upset conditions, hazardous emissions near schools, project locations on known or unknown hazardous materials sites, airport hazards, emergency response, and fire hazards would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Hydrology and Water Quality
HWQ- 1. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update could disturb soil during construction; increase impervious surfaces, stormwater runoff, erosion, and pollutants in stormwater; and/or alter drainage patterns. Compliance with NPDES permit requirements, city municipal code requirements, and existing Safety Element policies and actions would reduce impacts related to water quality, erosion and siltation, stormwater runoff, discharges of pollutants, and changes to flood flows. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
HWQ-2. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update 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.

Compliance with the City municipal code, Central Coast RWQCB’s post construction requirements for stormwater management, and GP/LCP Update goals and policies would ensure that new impervious surfaces and increased water use would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or decrease groundwater supplies. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
HWQ-3. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update may occur in areas with potential for inundation by flooding, tsunami, and/or dam failure. Compliance with applicable municipal code requirements would ensure development within areas subject to inundation would be sited, designed and constructed as to not exacerbate risks from release of pollutants from inundation. These impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The GP/LCP Update would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality, and the cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Land Use
LUP-1. Implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update would provide for orderly development in Pismo Beach and would not physically divide an established community.

This impact would be less than significant
No mitigation measures are required. N/A
LUP-2. With an Update to the City’s zoning ordinance and zoning map in conjunction with the GP/LCP Update, implementation of the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with applicable regional land use plans, policies, and regulations, such as the SLOCOG 2019 RTP/ SCS and City zoning districts and standards. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The GP/LCP Update would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to the physical division of any established community and land use plan consistency, and the cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Noise
N-1. Construction of individual projects facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would temporarily produce high noise levels, affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses. compliance with existing Municipal Code standards and the GP/LCP Update’s policies and actions would ensure construction activity associated with new development would limit noise disturbance at noise-sensitive receivers in the City. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
N-2. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would incrementally increase traffic and associated noise in Pismo Beach, exposing noise-sensitive land uses located near roadways to incrementally greater noise levels. However, implementation of Goals, policies, and actions in the GP/LCP Update would ensure that traffic noise would have a less than significant impact.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
N-3. New development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would introduce operational noise sources associated with residential and non-residential land uses. The continued regulation of on-site noise, consistent with the Pismo Beach Municipal Code, would minimize disturbance to adjoining uses. Therefore, on-site operational noise would have a less than significant impact.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
N-4. Construction of individual projects facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would temporarily generate groundborne vibration. Estimated vibration levels would not exceed applicable Caltrans criteria for human annoyance and structure damage, and the Pismo Beach Municipal Code’s timing restrictions on construction activity would limit vibration disturbance. Therefore, this impact would be less than No mitigation measures are required. N/A
N-5 Pismo Beach is located outside of noise contours associated with the nearest airports. Therefore, the impact from exposure to aircraft noise in the City would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The GP/LCP Update would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact related to noise and vibration, and the cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Population and Housing
PH-1. The GP/LCP Update would not result in growth in the City that is substantially greater than projected in the SLOCOG regional growth forecast. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
PH-2. Implementation of the GP/LCP Update would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The GP/LCP Update would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to displacement in the greater cumulative impact analysis area (San Luis Obispo County), and would not result in significant cumulative population growth impacts beyond the City. The incremental population impacts of the proposed GP/LCP Update would not be cumulatively considerable.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Public Services and Recreation
PUB-1. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would result in an increase in the City’s population. This would increase demand for fire, police, school, and other City services and potentially create the need for new police, fire, school, or other service facilities. However, payment of City required public facilities impact fees, and management of future growth would avoid adverse environmental effects associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire, police, school, or other public facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
PUB-2. Development associated with the GP/LCP Update would add population to the City that would increase use of parks and recreation facilities. However, park facilities have adequate capacity and with compliance with the GP/LCP Update policies impacts related to construction of park facilities would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The GP/LCP Update would result in less than significant impacts to fire, police, school, parks and recreational facilities, and other public services and facilities.

Growth anticipated under the GP/LCP Update would be within SLOCOG projections.

Therefore, although the GP/LCP Update would have an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts associated with public services and recreation, the contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Transportation and Traffic
T-1. Implementation of the General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Update would increase vehicle traffic volumes which has the potential to interfere with pedestrian and bicycle travel on or along roadways. However, the GP/LCP Update includes goals and policies to improve safety, access, and performance of transit, vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation modes, consistent with the SLOCOG 2019 RTP Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and Pismo Beach Complete Street Master Plan. This impact would be less than significant
No mitigation measures are required. N/A
T-2. The GP/LCP Update anticipates growth that would result in an overall increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region. The GP/LCP Update Circulation Element includes goals and policies that would establish local screening thresholds for streamlining VMT analysis. However, future development in Pismo Beach would result in an overall net increase in regional VMT as well as residential VMT per capita. No feasible mitigation is available that would fully address the anticipated increase in VMT. As a result, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation measures are available. Significant and Unavoidable
T-3. The GP/LCP Update is a program-level plan that does not implement specific design features. Future roadway improvements and site access measures would be designed and reviewed in accordance with federal, state, and city standards. This impact would be less than Significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
T-4. The proposed GP/LCP Update includes a program-level Circulation Element Update that identifies circulation improvements and policies to support emergency access throughout the City. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The cumulative growth evaluated under GP/LCP Update Conditions would result in an increase in the total regional VMT, daily VMT per capita, and daily VMT per employee. The individual potential impacts of future development in Pismo Beach are speculative; however, the cumulative impact of the increase in VMT in Pismo Beach and in San Luis Obispo County identified for the GP/LCP Update would be potentially significant. Future development in Pismo Beach would result in increased long-term VMT, even with implementation of identified goals and policies that would incrementally reduce VMT. Future individual development projects in Pismo Beach would require focused, project-level environmental review, and would require project-specific mitigation to reduce VMT where potential environmental impacts are identified.

Implementation of the goals and policies in the GP/LCP Update would contribute to reducing VMT in Pismo Beach, but no additional feasible mitigation is available that would fully address the anticipated increase in VMT resulting from the GP/LCP Update.

No feasible mitigation measures are available. Significant and Unavoidable

Executive Summary

Final Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Therefore, cumulative transportation impacts from new VMT in the region would remain significant and unavoidable.

There are existing federal, State, and local regulations that govern potential transportation hazards and emergency access associated with development and infrastructure projects. Regulations and oversight would effectively reduce the potential for individual projects to create a transportation hazards or emergency access impact within the City as well as in San Luis Obispo County. Thus, cumulative impacts related to the transportation hazards and emergency access would be less than significant.

Utilities/Service Systems
U-1. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would increase the demand for water supply and water infrastructure. However, the City of Pismo Beach projects that City water supply is sufficient to meet the projected water demand under buildout associated with the GP/LCP Update. This impact would be less that significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
U-2. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would increase demand for wastewater collection and treatment. However, replacement of old sewer lines and lift equipment under the City’s Capital Improvement Plant and implementation of the goals and policies of the GP/LCP Update to ensure sufficient wastewater treatment capacity would generally occur in previously disturbed or developed areas. This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
U-3. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would increase the demand for electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, and stormwater facilities. However, development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would occur in developed areas of the City where these facilities exist and relocation, if applicable, would generally occur in previously disturbed or developed areas. This impact would be less that significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
U-4. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would increase waste sent to area landfills. However, Cold Canyon Landfill would have capacity to serve the development envisioned in the GP/LCP Update. Goals and policies in GP/LCP Update would increase the amount of waste that is diverted from the landfill and encourage reuse and recycling.

This impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative. The GP/LCP Update the project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to physical disturbance for new or expanded wastewater systems and infrastructure, water supply impacts, the provision of electrical power, natural gas, telecommunication, and storm drain facilities, or solid waste.

No mitigation measures are required. N/A

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

ES-18

This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction

Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential environmental effects of the proposed City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update. The GP/LCP Update is defined as the proposed project for purposes of this environmental review. The environmental review process for the proposed project and legal basis for preparing an EIR are described below.

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
This document is a Final EIR that evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the City of Pismo Beach GP/LCP Update. The GP/LCP Update establishes the community’s vision for the future development of the city and provides comprehensive polices for the City relating to land use, noise, circulation, conservation and open space.

The Draft EIR for the Pismo Beach GP/LCP Update was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on February 1, 2022 and ended on March 18, 2022. Following the end of the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City prepared an Administrative Draft Final EIR. In addition to addressing public comments, the Administrative Draft Final EIR reflected removal of the Facilities Element from the GP/LCP Update and incorporation of Facilities Element policies into other elements. 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. The changes within the Recirculated Draft EIR were made primarily to reflect the addition and revision of policy and action language within the GP/LCP Update. In addition, changes made to policy and action numbering and lettering as a result of additional policies and actions within the GP/LCP Update (e.g., Action COS 3.1 was renumbered to Action COS

4.1, etc.). These changes also include minor language changes to specific goals, policies, and actions within the GP/LCP. In addition, these changes include the addition of new goals, policies, and actions to the Conservation and Open Space Element as a result of Senate Bill 14251 and the addition of new goals, policies, and actions added to the Circulation Element as a result of the reorganization of the GP/LCP Update. Language changes to existing policies and additional goals, policies, and actions within the GP/LCP are intended to provide a similar, and in some cases enhanced, level of environmental protection as the goals, policies, and actions within the GP/LCP Update at the time of the release of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, the changes to the goals, policies, and actions do not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than what was evaluated within the Draft EIR.

This Final EIR incorporates: 1) the changes made to the Draft EIR in the Recirculated Draft EIR and 2) additional changes made as a result of response to comments on the EIR, as described in Section 7, Responses to Comments. As part of the Final EIR the following appendices from the Draft EIR have been removed as they are outdated and no longer applicable to the GP/LCP Update:
 Appendix C, Conservation and Open Space Fact Sheet,
 Appendix D, Land Use Fact Sheet

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

1-2
 Appendix F, Safety Fact Sheet
Appendices have been re-lettered in this Final EIR to reflect these changes.

This section of the EIR:

Provides an overview of the background behind the GP/LCP Update; Describes the purpose of and legal authority of the EIR; Summarizes the environmental scoping process
Summarizes the content of the EIR;
Lists lead, responsible, and trustee agencies for the EIR; Describes the intended uses of the EIR;
Provides a synopsis of the environmental review process required under CEQA.

The contents of other EIR sections are as follows:
 Section 2, Project Description, provides a detailed discussion of the proposed project.  Section 3, Environmental Setting, describes the general environmental setting for the City of Pismo Beach.
 Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, describes the potential environmental effects associated with development facilitated by the proposed project.  Section 5, Other CEQA Required Sections, discusses issues such as growth inducement and significant, irreversible environmental effects.
 Section 6, Alternatives, discusses alternatives to the proposed project, including the CEQA- required “no project” alternative.
 Section 7, Responses to Comments, provides responses to agency and public comments received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15088.5(f)(2), the City has elected to respond to comments received on both the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR.
 Section 7 8, References, lists informational sources for the EIR and persons involved in the preparation of the document.

1.2 Overview of the GP/LCP Update
State law (Government Code Section 65300) requires that each city and county adopt and periodically update a comprehensive general plan. The California Coastal Act requires that each city or county within the Coastal Zone prepare an LCP. The City addresses both the California general plan law and the California Coastal Act requirements by integrating the GP and the LCP into one combined plan.

As described in Section 2.1 of Chapter 2.0, Project Description, State law requires that a GP contain the following mandatory subject areas, or “elements,” including Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. State law also allows for optional elements that can be organized or combined at the City’s discretion. The City’s 1992 GP/LCP is divided into the following ten elements: 1) Circulation, 2) Conservation and Open Space, 3) Design, 4) Facilities, 5) Growth Management, 6) Housing, 7) Land Use, 8) Noise, 9) Parks and

Introduction

Final Environmental Impact Report 1-3
Recreation, and 10) Safety. These ten elements address the topics mandated by the State law and Coastal Commission, as well as additional topics of interest to the City.

The LCP consists of the City’s Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan. The LUP consists of goals, policies and actions that address the requirements of the Coastal Act and are integrated into applicable elements of the GP. The Implementation Plan provides the zoning regulations that implement the LUP goals, policies and actions and serves as the City’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The California Coastal Act requires that the LCP be reviewed at least once every five years after certification to determine if the LCP is being effectively implemented in conformity with the policies of the Coastal Act.

The GP/LCP Update is an update of the City’s 1992 GP/LCP that requires review and recommendation for adoption by the City’s Planning Commission, and the discretionary approval by the City Council. The GP/LCP Update presents the community’s vision for Pismo Beach through 2040 and establishes overarching City policies and priorities that describe how the community intends to use and manage its physical, social, and economic resources. The GP/LCP Update includes updates to the Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation Elements of the City’s 1992 GP/LCP. The GP/LCP Update does not include updates to the Parks, Recreation, and Access Element, Safety Element, and Housing Element. The Facilities Element is being eliminated and incorporated into the other elements. The Design Element is being eliminated and incorporated into the Land Use Element. The Growth Management Element is being removed due to updates to California Housing Element Law and implementation of Senate Bill 330. With the GP/LCP Update, the City GP/LCP will consist of the following seven elements: 1) Circulation, 2) Conservation and Open Space, 3) Housing, 4) Land Use, 5) Noise, 6) Parks, Recreation, and Access, and 7) Safety.

The GP/LCP Update is intended to function as a policy document to guide land use decisions within the planning area through 2040. The GP/LCP Update was developed through an extensive public outreach and involvement process, including careful analysis by advisory committees, City staff, elected officials, and the community. Each element of the plan addresses different aspects of the community and identifies measurable actions to guide residents, decision-makers, businesses, and City staff toward achieving the community vision. Goals established in the GP/LCP Update are intended to maintain the City’s small beach town character, manage growth effectively, provide a safe community, and enhance the City’s tourist-based economy. The GP/LCP Update establishes overarching City policies and priorities that describe how the community intends to use and manage its physical, social, and economic resources. The GP/LCP Land Use Element guides the future development of Pismo Beach by establishing the allowable distribution, location, and extent of development across the city for residential, commercial, open space, public and semi-public facilities, and other uses.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

1-4

1.3 Purpose and Legal Authority
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15121 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to:

Inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.

This EIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as those of a Project EIR, Program EIRs are by necessity more conceptual and may contain a more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than a Project EIR. As provided in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that may be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR provides the City of Pismo Beach (as Lead Agency) with the opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and provides the City with greater flexibility to address environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a comprehensive basis. Agencies generally prepare Program EIRs for programs or a series of related actions that are linked geographically, are logical parts of a chain of contemplated events, rules, regulations, or plans that govern the conduct of a continuing program, or are individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. By its nature, a Program EIR considers the broad effects associated with implementing a program (such as a General Plan or Specific Plan) and does not, and is not intended to, examine the specific environmental effects associated with specific projects that may be accommodated by the provisions of General or Specific Plans.

Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine what, if any, additional CEQA documentation needs to be prepared. If the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documentation may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Lead Agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3)). If a subsequent activity would have effects not contemplated or not within the scope of the Program EIR, the Lead Agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a project-level EIR. In this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15168[b]) encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages:

Provision of a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR.

Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis.

Avoidance of continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues.

Consideration of broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them.

Reduction of paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering).

Introduction

Final Environmental Impact Report 1-5
As a wide-ranging environmental document, the Program EIR uses expansive thresholds as compared to the project-level thresholds that might be used for an EIR on a specific development project. It should not be assumed that impacts determined not to be significant at a program level would not be significant at a project level. In other words, determination that implementation of the proposed project as a program would not have a significant environmental effect does not necessarily mean that an individual project would not have significant effects based on project-level CEQA thresholds, even if the project is consistent with the GP/LCP Update.

This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with future development resulting from implementation of the GP/LCP Update, and also addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts. Additionally, this EIR will provide the primary source of environmental information for the City of Pismo Beach to use when considering the proposed project.

This EIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables intelligent consideration of the environmental consequences of the proposed project. This EIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as ways in which those impacts can be reduced to less-than-significant levels, whether through the incorporation of mitigation measures or through the implementation of specific alternatives to the proposed project.

In a practical sense, this document functions as a tool for fact-finding, allowing concerned citizens and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure.

1.4 Environmental Scoping
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was circulated to potentially interested parties from January 15, 2021 to February 15, 2021. The City received two responses to the NOP. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A. The City also held a public scoping meeting for the EIR on January 28, 2021 via videoconference. No verbal comments were received at the scoping meeting. The responses to the NOP comment letters are addressed, as appropriate, in the analysis contained in the various subsections of Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. Table 1-1 summarizes the comments received, by topic, in the comment letters.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

1-6
Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Agency Comments
California Department
of Transportation
(Caltrans)
Caltrans supports development that
includes improvements to pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit infrastructure.

Project components are discussed in Chapter 2,
Project Description.

Caltrans states that transportation impacts
should be the analyzed with the Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) metric, which will
help promote GHG emissions reductions.

Transportation impacts, including an analysis of
the project’s potential to result in new VMT,
are addressed in Section 4.14, Transportation
and Traffic. GHG emissions are discussed in
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Caltrans encourages a Transportation
Demand Strategies (TDM) plan that may
contain strategies such as locating higher
density projects near transit, incorporating
complete streets, mixed-use development,
and traffic calming measures.

Project components are discussed in Chapter 2,
Project Description. Transportation impacts are
addressed in section 4.14, Transportation and
Traffic.

Caltrans states that climate change impacts
on the State Highway System and local
roadway should be addressed given
forecasted increases in wildfire,
precipitation, and sea level rise, as state
highways serve as main access routes for
emergency response.

The effects of climate change on evacuation
routes, due to projected increases in extreme
weather events, wildfires, and sea level rise,
are discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions/Climate Change.

San Luis Obispo
County Air Pollution
Control District
(APCD)
The DEIR should include a description of
existing air quality and emissions in the
impact area, including the attainment
status of the APCD relative to State and
Federal air quality standards and any
existing regulatory restrictions to
development.

Air quality is addressed in Section 4.2, Air
Quality
The DEIR should include a consistency
analysis that evaluates the proposed
update against the land use and
transportation goals, policies, and
population projections contained in the
APCD Clean Air Plan, the San Luis Obispo
Council of Government’s Regional
Transportation Plan, and local Climate
Action Plans. APCD provides some
recommended references.

Comment is addressed in Section 4.2, Air
Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions.

The DEIR should include a range of
alternatives, with a consistency analysis as
described in the previous comment
provided for each.

Comment is addressed in Section 6,
Alternatives.

APCD does not support sensitive receptor
development near Highway 101 and
railroads, as DPM can present health risks
to sensitive receptors. APCD provides some
recommendations for development near
Highway 101 and railroads, including
further consideration if low-income
residential units are sited near pollution
sources.

Comment is addressed in Section 4.2, Air
Quality.

Introduction

Final Environmental Impact Report 1-7

1.5 EIR Content
The focus of this EIR is to:
 Provide information about the GP/LCP Update for review and consideration by the City Council and the California Coastal Commission in their selection of the proposed GP/LCP Update, an alternative to the proposed GP/LCP Update, or a combination of various elements from the proposed GP/LCP Update and its alternatives, for approval.  Review and evaluate the potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the growth and development envisioned in the proposed GP/LCP Update.  Identify feasible mitigation measures that may be incorporated into the proposed GP/LCP Update in order to reduce or eliminate potentially significant effects.  Disclose any potential growth-inducing and/or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed GP/LCP Update.
 Examine a reasonable range of alternative growth scenarios (such as “no growth”/growth according to the existing GP/LCP, reduced growth, or growth in alternative locations) that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the proposed GP/LCP Update, while eliminating and/or reducing some or all of its potentially significant adverse environmental effects.

Sections 4.1 through 4.15 of this EIR evaluates potential impacts in each of the following issues listed in the CEQA Checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:
 Aesthetics
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services and Recreation
 Transportation
 Utilities and Service Systems
In addition, agricultural resources and mineral resources are discussed in Section 4.16, Less than Significant Environmental Effects.

1.6 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The City of Pismo Beach is the lead agency under CEQA for this EIR because it has primary discretionary authority to determine whether or how to approve the proposed GP/LCP Update.

Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines defines responsible agencies as other public agencies that are responsible for carrying out/implementing a specific component of a proposed project or for approving a project (such as an annexation) that implements the goals and policies of a General Plan. The California Coastal Commission would be a responsible agency for certification of the GP/LCP Update, Zoning Code Update, and Coastal Implementation Plan.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

1-8
Although not responsible agencies under CEQA, several other agencies have review authority over aspects of the proposed project or approval authority over projects that could potentially be implemented in accordance with various objectives and policies included in the GP/LCP Update.

These agencies and their roles are listed below.
 The State Geologist is responsible for the review of the City’s program for minimizing exposure to geologic hazards and for regulating surface mining activities.  The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has responsibility for approving future improvements to the state highway system, including State Route 1 (SR 1) and United States Highway 101 (U.S. 101).
 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has responsibility for issuing take permits and streambed alteration agreements for any projects with the potential to affect plant or animal species listed by the State of California as rare, threatened, or endangered or that would disturb waters of the State.

Trustee agencies have jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California but do not have a legal authority over approving or carrying out the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 designates four agencies as trustee agencies:

CDFW with regard to the fish and wildlife of the state, to designated rare or endangered native plants, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the department;
The State Lands Commission with regard to state owned “sovereign” lands such as the beds of navigable waters and state school lands;
The California Department of Parks and Recreation, with regard to units of the State park System; and
The University of California, with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System.

1.7 Intended Uses of the EIR
This EIR is as an informational document for use in the City’s review and consideration of the proposed GP/LCP Update. This document is a Program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a) states that:

A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria, to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

As a programmatic document, this EIR presents and discloses a region-wide assessment of the environmental impacts of the GP/LCP Update. The information and analysis in this EIR will be used by the Pismo Beach Planning Commission and City Council, trustee agencies, and the general public.

The GP/LCP Update will guide subsequent actions taken by the City in its review of new development projects and the establishment of new and/or revised citywide or area-specific programs. This Program EIR serves as a first-tier environmental document under CEQA, supporting

Introduction

Final Environmental Impact Report 1-9
second-tier environmental documents for projects with detailed designs that have been developed for implementation within the City. Analysis of site-specific impacts of individual projects is not the intended use of a Program EIR. Many specific projects are not currently defined to the level that would allow for such an analysis at this time. Individual and specific environmental analysis of each project will be undertaken as necessary in the future by the City prior to each project being considered for approval. Therefore, the City, acting as the Lead Agency, would be able to prepare subsequent environmental documents that incorporate by reference the appropriate information from this Program EIR regarding secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other relevant factors. If the City finds that implementation of a later activity would have no new effects and that no new mitigation measures would be required, that activity would require no additional CEQA review. Where subsequent environmental review is required, such review would focus on significant effects specific to the project, or its site that have not been considered in this Program EIR.

The Sphere of Influence SOI (SOI), shown on Figure 2-3, defines the area to which the City intends to provide municipal services and allow the development of some urban land uses at a future date. As shown on Figure 2-6, future land use designations within the SOI are not specifically defined or included within the buildout assumptions of the GP/LCP Update. As such, this EIR analyzes impacts from reasonably foreseeable development within the City limits (shown in Figure 2-2). Although future uses may be developed within the SOI, they would be subject to annexation to the City of Pismo Beach in compliance with procedures identified by the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and would be subject to additional CEQA review.

The LCP forms the legal standard of review for issuance of Coastal Development Permits (CDP) within the City’s coastal zone.

1.8 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process required under CEQA is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (City of Pismo Beach) must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days.

Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

Public Notice and Review. A lead agency must prepare a Public Notice of Availability of an EIR.

The Notice must be placed in the County Clerk's office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and sent to anyone requesting it. Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from responsible and trustee agencies, and adjacent cities and counties. The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days, unless a

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

1-10
shorter period is approved by the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091). Distribution of the Draft EIR may be required through the State Clearinghouse.

Notice of Completion. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse as soon as it completes a Draft EIR.

Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.

Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.

Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the County Clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

Introduction

Final Environmental Impact Report 1-11
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

1-12

This page intentionally left blank.

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
The project analyzed in this Program EIR (PEIR) is the proposed City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update, which includes updates to the Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation Elements of the City’s 1992 GP/LCP. The GP/LCP Update does not include updates to the Parks, Recreation, and Access Element, Safety Element, and Housing Element. The Facilities Element is being eliminated and incorporated into the other elements. The Design Element is being eliminated and incorporated into the Land Use Element. The Growth Management Element is being removed due to updates to California Housing Element Law and implementation of Senate Bill 330. This section of the PEIR describes the key characteristics of the GP/LCP Update, including the project proponent/lead agency, the geographic extent of the plan, project objectives, required approvals and types and extent of development forecasted under the GP/LCP Update.

2.1 Purpose of the GP/LCP Update
The GP/LCP Update is an update of the City’s 1992 GP/LCP and presents the community’s vision for Pismo Beach through the GP/LCP horizon (year 2040). The City’s 1992 GP/LCP is divided into the following ten elements: 1) Circulation, 2) Conservation and Open Space, 3) Design, 4) Facilities, 5) Growth Management, 6) Housing, 7) Land Use, 8) Noise, 9) Parks, Recreation, and Access 10) Safety.

With the GP/LCP Update, the City GP/LCP will consist of the following seven elements: 1) Circulation, 2) Conservation and Open Space, 3) Housing, 4) Land Use, 5) Noise, 6) Parks, Recreation, and Access, and 7) Safety.

The GP/LCP Update was developed through an extensive public outreach and involvement process, including careful analysis by advisory committees, City staff, elected officials, and the community.

Each element of the plan addresses different aspects of the community and identifies measurable actions to guide residents, decision-makers, businesses, and City staff toward achieving the community vision. Goals established in the GP/LCP Update are intended to maintain the City’s small beach town character, manage growth effectively, provide a safe community, and enhance the City’s tourist-based economy. The GP/LCP Update establishes overarching City policies and priorities that describe how the community intends to use and manage its physical, social, and economic resources. The GP/LCP Land Use Element guides the future development of Pismo Beach by establishing the allowable distribution, location, and extent of development across the city for residential, commercial, open space, public and semi-public facilities, and other uses.

The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recognizes the relationship between General Plans and Local Coastal Plans for coastal cities and recommends that both requirements be addressed by integrating the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan. An integrated plan allows the community to apply the vision and requirements for both documents in a comprehensive manner, facilitating a unified and efficient approach to complying with both California general plan law and the California Coastal Act. The majority of Pismo Beach is located in the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the City has found it appropriate to follow OPR’s recommendation and integrate the updated GP/LCP.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-2
The LCP consists of two parts as required by the Coastal Act: a Land Use Plan (LUP), which was last updated in 1993, and the Implementation Plan, which was last updated in 1983, with several amendments to both documents occurring since. The LUP consists of goals, policies and actions that address the requirements of the Coastal Act and are integrated into applicable elements of the GP.

The LCP must address priority issues for the California Coastal Commission including:
 Public access,
 Recreation and visitor serving facilities,
 Water quality protection,
 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) and other natural resources,  Agricultural resources,
 New development and cultural resources,
 Scenic and visual resources,
 Coastal hazards,
 Shoreline erosion and protective devices, and
 Energy and industrial development.

The Implementation Plan provides the zoning regulations that implement the LUP goals, policies and actions and serves as the City’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance. New development in the City’s Coastal Zone is required to be consistent with the combined GP/LCP and Coastal Zoning Ordinance. The GP/LCP may be amended to stay up to date with State laws and to continue to reflect the vision of the community.

State law (Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4) sets forth the requirement for each municipality to adopt and periodically update its General Plan, and sets the requirement that a General Plan contain the following mandatory subject areas, or “elements”, including Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. California adopted Senate Bill 1000 on September 24, 2016 requiring cities to develop an Environmental Justice element, or related environmental justice goals and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in “disadvantaged communities.” Cities are required to incorporate environmental justice goals and policies into their general plan when they update two or more general plan elements on or after January 1, 2018. State law also allows for optional elements that can be organized or combined at the City’s discretion. The GP/LCP Update includes the required subjects/elements as well as one additional element: Parks, Recreation, and Access. The Facilities Element is being incorporated into other elements as detailed in Section 2.4.2, GP/LCP Update Organization. The Design Element is incorporated into the Land Use Element. The environmental justice content required by SB 1000 is reflected in portions of the Land Use, Housing, and Parks, Recreation, and Access Elements of the GP/LCP.

2.2 Project Proponent/Lead Agency
The City of Pismo Beach is the project proponent and the lead agency for the proposed GP/LCP Update. The City’s Planning Division, located at 760 Mattie Road in the City of Pismo Beach, prepared this PEIR with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-3

2.3 Project Location

2.3.1 Geographic Location
The City of Pismo Beach is located on the Central Coast of California, midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Pismo Beach is one of seven incorporated cities within San Luis Obispo County (County). The county is frequently divided into four general sub-regions: North Coast, Northeast County, South County, and Central San Luis Obispo. South County includes the incorporated cities of Pismo Beach, Grover City, and Arroyo Grande and the unincorporated communities of Avila Beach, Oceano, and Nipomo. Pismo Beach lies within the San Luis Bay Planning Area of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan. Pismo Beach has a total area of 13.5 square miles, the majority of which is located in the Coastal Zone. 9.9 square miles of the City is water and the remaining 3.6 square miles is land area. The GP/LCP Update and this PEIR only focus on the land area of the City. Pismo Beach is bordered by the beach and ocean on the southwest and hills to the northeast. The Cities of Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande are south and east of Pismo Beach and the unincorporated community of Avila Beach is just north of Pismo Beach.

The project area for the GP/LCP Update is defined as the City limits. The extended planning area for Pismo Beach also includes all area within the Sphere of Influence (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 a private school site of approximately 30 acres. A small area located closer to Mattie Road was added to the SOI in 2016 for a Preserve parking lot and restroom facilities. The SOI defines the area to which the City intends to provide municipal services and allow the development of some urban land uses at a future date. Future land use designations within the SOI are not specifically defined or included within the buildout assumptions of the GP/LCP Update. As such, the SOI is not include as part of the project area for the GP/LCP Update.

Figure 2-1 depicts a regional map of the City’s relationship to nearby cities, communities, and the State highway system. Figure 2-2 shows the Pismo Beach City limits and Coastal Zone boundary in the City. Figure 2-3 shows the SOI.

2.3.2 Existing Land Form and Pattern
Pismo Beach’s existing land use form is shaped by its topography, linear coastal orientation, natural resources and circulation patterns. The City is served by four main arteries: U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), Cabrillo Highway (State Route 1), Shell Beach Road and Price Street, which all run northwest– southeast through the City. Price Canyon Road, Fourth Street, Oak Park Boulevard, and James Way are also main connector roads. Residential and commercial uses are mostly concentrated west of U.S. 101, while open space and industrial uses are clustered mostly east of U.S. 101. Figure 2-4 shows the City’s existing on-the-ground distribution of land use in Pismo Beach.

As shown in Figure 2-4, Pismo Beach includes an assortment of residential, commercial, office, public and open space uses. The neighborhood planning areas listed in Table 2-1 are described in detail in Section 2.3.3.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-4
Figure 2-1 Regional Location

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-5
Figure 2-2 Pismo Beach City Limits and Coastal Zone Boundary Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-6
Figure 2-3 Pismo Beach City Limits and Sphere of Influence

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Figure 2-4 Existing Land Use Pattern

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-8
Table 2-1 Existing Development by Neighborhood Planning Area Planning Area
Residential (units)
Visitor
Serving
(rooms)
Retail, Service, Office
(1,000 square feet)
Open
Space
(acres)
Single
Family
Multi-
Family
Mobile
Home
Resort
Commercial Commercial Industrial
Public/
Semi-
Public
Open
Space
The Bluffs/Sunset
Palisades/South
Palisade
478 0 - - 253.5 4 0.8 97
North Spyglass/
Spyglass
108 71 - 298 500.9 - 1.1 7.3
St. Andrews/
Spindrift
228 25 - - 51 - 8.8 9.1
Shell Beach/
Dinosaur Caves
910 44 - 24 321.5 - 9.7 13.6
Motel 79 - - 572 2,028.6 - - 25.2
Downtown Core 512 279 - 596 1,672.7 - 16.4 150.1
Pismo Creek/Pismo
Marsh
417 141 515 370 2,491.2 142.9 21.7 211.9
Oak Park Heights 1,189 - - 120 1,968.9 1,172.6 207.8 113.4 Pismo Heights 656 46 - - - - 49.2 3.4
Freeway Foothills/
Mattie Road
404 - - - 306.6 - 5.6 177.9
Total 4,981 418 515 1,980 9,594.9 1,315.5 321.1 808.9

2.3.3 Neighborhood Planning Areas
Pismo Beach is organized into neighborhood planning areas. The 1992 General Plan described 18 planning areas, which are consolidated into 10 planning areas for the GP/LCP Update. The 10 neighborhood planning areas in the GP/LCP Update are shown in Figure 2-5. Each of the planning areas is predominantly built-out to its maximum development potential based on the designated land uses and associated density limits, with little developable acreage remaining. As such, infill development and adaptive reuse are encouraged and commonly used practices within the City.

Table 2-2 shows the relationship between the planning areas in the GP/LCP Update and the 1992 General Plan planning areas.

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Table 2-2 Relationship Between GP/LCP Update Planning Areas and 1992 General Plan Planning Areas
Planning Area (GP/LCP Update) Planning Areas (1992 General Plan) Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/ South Palisade Sunset Palisades/Ontario Ridge (Planning Area A) South Palisades (Planning Area B)
North Spyglass/Spyglass North Spyglass (Planning Area C) Spyglass (Planning Area D)
St. Andrews/Spindrift St. Andrews (Planning Area E)
Spindrift (Planning Area F)
Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves Terrace Avenue (Planning Area G) Shell Beach (Planning Area H)
Dinosaur Caves (Planning Area I)
Motel Motel (Planning Area J)
Downtown Core Downtown (Planning Area K)
Pismo Creek/Pismo Marsh Pismo Creek (Planning Area L)
Pismo Marsh (Planning Area M)
Oak Park Heights Oak Park Heights (Planning Area N)
Industrial (Planning Area O)
Pismo Heights Pismo Heights (Planning Area P)
Freeway Foothills/Mattie Road Freeway Foothills (Planning Area Q) Note: Portions of the Oak Park Heights (Planning Area N) and Freeway Foothills (Planning Area Q) planning areas, as well as all of the Price Canyon Area (Planning Area R) planning area identified in the 1992 General Plan were located within the Pismo Beach SOI but outside the City limits. The Planning Areas identified in the GP/LCP Update are limited to land within the City limits.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-10
Figure 2-5 Neighborhood Planning Areas

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/South Palisades
Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs is an ocean-oriented, low-profile residential neighborhood with a backdrop of the coastal foothills. The planning area is almost totally developed with low-density residential use with a few scattered vacant residential lots. The bluffs atop the Sunset Palisades stretch of coast are under private ownership. South Palisades, south of Sunset Palisades, includes clustered multifamily and single-family residential development. The ocean bluffs range in height from 40 to 50 feet at the north end to 80 feet at the south end of the planning area. San Luis Obispo County has an easement from the toe of the bluff to the mean high tide line. A sandy beach extends for most of the length of the oceanfront in this area.

North Spyglass/Spyglass
The North Spyglass/Spyglass planning area is comprised of resort commercial uses. North Spyglass, located north of Spyglass Drive, consists of three large parcels with three major hotels (the Dolphin Bay Resort, Cliffs Hotel, Spyglass Inn). Key aspects of the area are a 50-foot-wide lateral access at the top of the bluffs, the stairway, and related public parking at the northern barranca. A bluff top trail spans the entire portion of this planning area that provides access to a stairway to the beach adjacent to the Cliffs Hotel and the South Palisades area. At the base of 50-foot bluffs is a narrow sandy beach accessible during normal tide. Bluff erosion is severe in this area.

South of Spyglass Drive is the Spyglass community, which is a fully developed residential area with multiple housing types, a small commercial center and the Spyglass Public Park. The area serves as a gateway to Pismo Beach as U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps are located in this area.

St. Andrews/Spindrift
St. Andrews Tract is comprised of predominantly low-density residential uses, with open space along the northern border, and high-density residential uses and the Pismo Beach Fire Department Station 63 on the northern end of Coburn Lane. South of the St. Andrews Tract area is Spindrift, a planned residential community consisting of multifamily housing uses in the larger southern parcel and single-family residential and open space/recreational uses to the north, west, and east.

Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves
This Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves planning area is comprised of Shell Beach and the neighboring Terrace Avenue and Dinosaur Caves areas. The Terrace Avenue area is home to Shell Beach Elementary School and a mix of low, medium, and high-density residential uses. South of the Terrace Avenue area is Shell Beach, also known as the Village, which is predominantly medium- density residential, with high-density residential uses between the medium-density residential and the commercial uses bordering the west side of Shell Beach Road. Just south of Cliff Avenue is Dinosaur Caves Park, which offers walking trails, a playground, and ocean views on an 11-acre park.

The Dinosaur Caves planning area extends south covering a resort commercial parcel, currently the Inn at the Cove. The City adopted the Shell Beach Design Standards and Guidelines in 2017, which provides additional guidance for future residential, commercial and mixed-use development and redevelopment within the Shell Beach community.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-12
Motel District
South of the Dinosaur Caves planning area is the Motel District, which is comprised of resort commercial uses (primarily hotel and restaurant) with some medium-density residential uses along Franklin Drive, Wilmar Avenue, and Harbor View Avenue.

Downtown Core
The Downtown Core has a variety of land uses, including resort commercial, commercial, public/semi-public, open space, high-density residential, and low-density residential uses. This planning area serves as Pismo Beach’s downtown, providing uses like shops, restaurants, cafes, art studios, and the Pismo Beach Pier. The Pismo Beach Pier, plaza, and boardwalk offer ocean views, as well as a space for fishing and walking. The Downtown Core creates a public space for residents and visitors to eat, shop, and recreate in a small beach-town environment.

Pismo Creek/Pismo Marsh
The Pismo Creek planning area is separated from the Downtown Core by Pismo Creek, is bisected by the railroad tracks, and has no interior road connections to the Downtown Core planning area. This planning area is comprised of mobile home park, commercial, open space, and industrial uses. Along Pismo Creek, this planning area is used as commercial recreational areas in the form of recreational vehicle (RV) parks and mobile homes. The relatively large parcel in the center of the Pismo Creek planning area is a mobile home park. The Pismo Creek/Pismo Marsh planning area is comprised of open space in the form of Pismo Marsh, the Monarch butterfly grove, creek open space, walking trails, and campground uses. The commercial area is the home of the Pismo Beach Premium Outlets, which provides a range of retail for residents and visitors. The industrial portions this planning area primarily consist of uses such as a trailer storage and the commercial manufacturing use consists of a shopping center.

Oak Park Heights
The Oak Park Heights area includes the entire northeast quadrant of the City northeast of U.S. 101, northwest of North Oak Park Boulevard and southeast of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The area consists of the three neighborhood sub-areas of Toucan Terrace, Pismo Oaks, and Pacific Estates.

The Land Use Element includes policies for the entire planning area as a whole, including these four sub-areas. The Oak Park Heights planning area contains low- and medium-density residential uses with open space areas surrounding the residential. Additionally, there are commercial areas at the southern boundary of Pismo Beach and along U.S. 101. The commercial uses along the southern City boundary are strip malls and the commercial uses along U.S. 101 are office parks and hotels.

Pismo Heights
The Pismo Heights planning area is almost completely built out and is comprised of low-density residential uses with some medium-density residential uses in the southern portion of the planning area and high density residential uses along U.S. 101. This planning area includes Francis Judkins Junior High School, the Old City Hall complex, and Boosinger public park. Open space is located east of the low-density residential areas, and public/semi-public uses are located in the southeastern portion of the planning area. On the eastern side of this planning area is the City’s sewage treatment plant, baseball fields, and the Pacific Gas and Electric transport and storage facility. Pismo Creek runs through the planning area, which creates flooding constraints. Other constraints include

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-13
poor vehicular access to the baseball fields, and the closure of the historic bridge due to structural problems.

Freeway Foothills/Mattie Road
The Freeway Foothills planning area is located east of U.S. 101 and consists of low and medium density residential neighborhoods, planned residential, a restaurant and small shopping complex, and a small undeveloped parcel at the northern end of the area. This planning area includes the specific plan areas of Baycliff and Spyglass Ridge, and Mattie Road area. This area is highly visible from U.S. 101 above Shell Beach and Sunset Palisades. The Freeway Foothills provide an important visual and open space backdrop for the northern half of the City. The planning area is physically separated from the other City areas by U.S. 101, with only two cross-highway underpasses connecting to Mattie Road from Shell Beach Road/Palisades Drive and Price Street. These accesses are via freeway underpasses located at Spyglass Drive and just north of the Shorecliff Lodge.

2.3.4 Access and Transportation Network
U.S. 101 traverses through the center of Pismo Beach, providing access to the adjacent cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, and cities such as San Luis Obispo to the north and Santa Maria to the south. State Route 1 (SR 1) also provides regional access between U.S. 101 and Grover Beach. SR 1 is known as Dolliver Street and the Pacific Coast Highway and is the primary route through downtown Pismo Beach. The downtown area is located in the southern portion of the City, bordered by U.S. 101 on the east, the intersection of Dolliver Street (SR 1) and Price Street on the north, and Pismo Creek on the south.

The Shell Beach area, which is part of the City of Pismo Beach, is located in the northern part of Pismo Beach and is predominantly a residential area with local businesses fronting Shell Beach Road. Shell Beach Road runs parallel to U.S. 101, providing frontage access to Shell Beach, and continues as Price Street south into downtown Pismo Beach. U.S. 101 provides nine full or partial access interchanges within the City limits, and only eight roadways provide access across U.S. 101 within the city. Generally, Pismo Beach’s roadway system follows a cardinal grid system within downtown and the Shell Beach areas, which are parallel and perpendicular to U.S. 101.

U.S. 101 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) are manmade barriers across town, and the coastal mountains northeast of Pismo Beach and Pismo Creek in the southern part of the City are natural barriers. Access across U.S. 101, UPRR, and Pismo Creek is limited. Pismo Creek runs along Price Canyon just south of the mountains and is parallel to Price Canyon Road. Pismo Creek and UPRR are barriers between downtown, the residential areas in the southern part of the City, and the Pismo Beach Premium Outlets. Access across Pismo Creek is only provided via U.S. 101, Dolliver Street, and limited access via Cypress Street. Access across UPRR is limited to U.S. 101 within the City limits, and via SR 1/West Grand Avenue further south in Grover Beach.

The Pacific Coast Bike Route runs north-south through Pismo Beach, including SR 1/Dolliver Street.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-14

2.4 Characteristics of the GP/LCP Update
The land use classifications included in the GP/LCP define the basic categories of land use allowed in the city and are the basis for the zoning districts established in the Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code), which contain more specific regulations and standards governing development on individual properties.

Under State law, a property’s zoning is required to be consistent with its General Plan land use classification (Government Code §65860). Section 65860(c) of the Government Code requires that 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.”

2.4.1 Objectives of the GP/LCP Update
The GP/LCP Update is intended to function as a policy document to guide land use decisions within the City through the year 2040, consistent with the community vision and guiding principles. The vision for the city was developed with extensive community input. Based on this community input and in recognition of the state’s planning priorities, a vision and values supporting the vision for the community were developed. The vision and guiding principles of the GP/LCP Update, which are also the project objectives, are contained in the Land Use Element and are summarized below.

A key objective of the GP/LCP Update is to ensure that the City’s land use plan meets the fair share housing needs allocation established in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP).

Community Vision
The City conducts community outreach and engagement every two years to reconfirm the community’s vision and set City goals that are prioritized and included in the fiscal year budgets for the following two-year cycle. Through this most recent engagement process for the Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021 Budgets, the following vision has been reconfirmed for Pismo Beach that serves to guide the GP/LCP Update:
 Provide a safe place
 Maintain the City’s small beach town character
 Manage growth effectively
 Enhance a vibrant tourist-based economy, while becoming a world-renowned tourist destination
Guiding Principles
With the community vision in mind, the City has developed guiding principles to set the framework for the GP/LCP Land Use Element. The Land Use Element has been drafted to implement the community vision through its goals, policies, and actions, and is built around the following guiding principles:

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-15
Preserve the Historic Ambiance of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach contains the historic “Classic California” ambiance of the small California beach town. This is particularly evident in the Downtown Core and Shell Beach Village. Although difficult to define, the preservation of this ambiance is important and the City shall encourage its preservation. This ambiance provides an attractive experience by creating a link to the past, a sense of place, and a slower pace. The Land Use Element sets forth the tools for preservation of historic neighborhood character and retention of the classic downtown setting framed by original landmark architecture and character properties. The historic character provides the setting to attract vibrant downtown uses that serve the needs of residents and visitors.

Support the Visitor Population While Enhancing the Quality of Life for all Residents The California coast is an extremely desirable place to live, work and recreate that belongs to all the people. As such, congenial and cooperative use by both residents and visitors is recognized.

Such use should capture the best attributes of the City and creatively determine the acceptable place, scale, intensity, rate and methods for development consistent with resource protection and public benefit. The Land Use Element provides the tools for an economy built on visitor- serving uses that balances commercial and residential development. Through protection of existing visitor-serving overnight accommodations, promoting the development of new overnight accommodations, and attracting focused retail and services, the City can best support the visiting population that is so essential to the Pismo Beach economy, while also enhancing the quality of life for residents with a healthy year-round economy.

In addition to accommodations and retail services, the Land Use Element provides policy for the health and well-being of local residents and visitors alike. These policies strive to be the catalyst for healthy and desirable living environments through the use of design guidelines, appropriate zoning, transit accessibility, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Manage Growth Effectively
With the focus of this GP/LCP on providing a high quality of life for Pismo Beach citizens and visitors and protecting the community’s natural and coastal resources, the Land Use Element strives to provide a high level of service and infrastructure, and plan for new development that is thoughtfully concentrated within its urban boundaries. Through tools such as enforcement of development fees and annual reporting, the City can effectively manage and maintain its high level of service, valued resources, and the infrastructure needed to complement the City’s growth. The Land Use Element also provides the tools and incentives for the City to direct new development that responsibly concentrates development in areas where infill and adaptive reuse will contribute to a high quality of life for the entire community.

Preserve and Protect Natural Resources
The ocean, beach and the abutting land are recognized as an irreplaceable national resource to be enjoyed by the entire City and region. The Land Use Element provides the tools to direct new development to preserve and enhance the natural resources of Pismo Beach, including the ocean and beaches, hills, valleys, canyons and cliffs, and the Pismo and Meadow Creek streams, marsh and estuaries. The Land Use Element provides policies that further enhance the requirements provided within the Coastal Act. Land use decisions shall also be made to retain ridgelines, hillsides, open space, and the other unique natural features within Pismo Beach. The Land Use Element guides planning decisions in the Coastal Zone that ensure public coastal

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-16
access, while maintaining coastal preservation and protection. (See related principles and policies in the Conservation Element and Safety Element.)

2.4.2 GP/LCP Update Organization
The GP/LCP Update includes updates to the Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, Noise, and Circulation Elements of the City’s GP/LCP. The GP/LCP Update does not include updates to the Parks, Recreation, and Access Element, Safety Element, and Housing Element. These elements address the topics mandated by the State law and Coastal Commission, as well as additional topics of interest to the City. The Facilities Element is being eliminated and incorporated into the other elements. The Design Element is incorporated into the Land Use Element. The Growth Management Element is being removed due to updates to California Housing Element Law and implementation of Senate Bill 330. The elements included in the GP/LCP Update are summarized as follows:
 Land Use Element. The Land Use Element directs the placement and character of future development in Pismo Beach. This element consists of narrative, goals, policies, and actions, as well as a land use map that outlines the future development of Pismo Beach. It presents the pattern of land uses for the ultimate development of the City for the GP/LCP Update horizon (year 2040) through the land use designations shown on the land use map. This element identifies local goals that present how the pattern of land use development in Pismo Beach will look in 2040 and presents policies that measure progress toward the goals and actions that identify the regulatory tools the City can use to meet those goals.  Noise Element. The Noise Element identifies the City’s approach to controlling environmental noise and limiting community exposure to excessive noise levels. This element identifies and analyzes the major noise sources in the community and provides data and guidance to inform a pattern of land uses that minimizes exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The primary goals of the Noise Element are to protect quiet areas of a community from noise and provide a framework for developing implementation measures and strategies to address existing and foreseeable noise problems.
 Conservation and Open Space Element. The Conservation and Open Space Element guides the protection of natural, scenic, and cultural resources and conservation areas important to the environment and sustained economic prosperity of Pismo Beach. This element identifies local goals that present how the City’s natural environment will look in 2040 and presents policies that measure progress toward the goals and actions that identify the regulatory tools the City can use to meet those goals.
 Circulation Element. The Circulation Element provides the goals, policies, and programs pertaining to implementing the transportation system needed to serve the City’s projected development, and identifies a comprehensive plan for multimodal transportation improvements that will maintain consistency with the concurrent update of the City’s Land Use Element. The goals, objectives, and policies establish a citywide strategy to achieve long-term mobility and accessibility for all travel modes within the City.

2.4.3 GP/LCP Update Goals
Based on the community vision, guiding principles, identified major strategies and physical improvements, and input from the community, the GP/LCP Update includes goals in each element to address specific needs, concerns, opportunities, or community desires. Goals are broad in both purpose and aim but are designed specifically to establish positions or directions. The goals in each chapter are listed in Table 2-3.

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-17
Table 2-3 GP/LCP Update Goals
General Plan Chapter Goals
Land Use Goal LU-1 A community with a variety of well-regulated land uses that support the diverse needs of both residents and visitors.

Goal LU-2 A community that strives to maintain a classic California and small-town beach atmosphere.

Goal LU-3 City Design. A functional community that is designed with compatible facades, architectural styles, and colors.

Goal LU-4 A community economy built on visitor-serving uses while maintaining services for year-round community members.

Goal LU-5 A community that supports the health, safety, and sustainability of all residents, visitors and structures.

Goal LU-6 A community that provides and maintains a high level of service and infrastructure to all development.

Goal LU-7 A community where growth is concentrated in corridors and neighborhood centers where adaptive land reuse will contribute to a high quality of life for the entire community.

Goal LU-8 A community that protects and enhances natural and coastal resources within Pismo Beach.

Land Use –
Neighborhood
Planning Areas
Goal LU-9 Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/South Palisades. An ocean-oriented residential neighborhood with an emphasis on preservation of natural resources, open space, coastal views and scenic corridors.

Goal LU-10 North Spyglass/Spyglass. A planning area with a mix of visitor-serving hotel uses and a variety of housing types, with access to parks, the beach and neighborhood shopping.

Goal LU-11 St. Andrews Tract/Spindrift. A residential neighborhood where new additions and replacements are compatible with the scale and character of the existing development and where bluff tops, coastal access, trees and bird habitat are protected.

Goal LU-12 Terrance Avenue/Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves. A planning area focused on conserving the existing housing stock and character and improving the commercial and pedestrian environment of Shell Beach to enhance this beach community.

Goal LU-13 Motel District. A planning area that serves as a key focus for Pismo Beach's visitor-serving industry with special consideration given to retaining and upgrading existing motel uses and preserving ocean views and bluff access.

Goal LU-14 Downtown Core. A vibrant Downtown area that acts as a destination for all, providing motel and hotel uses, as well as supporting uses such as commercial, mixed use, high-density residential, and recreation.

Goal LU-15 Pismo Creek/Pismo Marsh. A planning area oriented to visitor-serving activities, regional commercial uses, mobile home park, industrial and open space with a focus on protecting Pismo Creek, the marsh habitat, and coastal views.

Goal LU-16 Oak Park Heights. A planning area with a mix of residential, open space, commercial and resort commercial uses with a focus on preserving open space, ocean views and views of Oak Park Heights.

Goal LU-17 Pismo Heights/Industrial Area. A planning area with a mix of residential housing types, as well as the Judkins Middle School, the Public Safety Facility, Boosinger Park, and Industrial Area.

Goal LU-18 Freeway Foothills/Mattie Road. A planning area with a mix of housing types, open space and commercial uses with an emphasis on preservation of the spectacular views and foothills that provide an important visual and open space backdrop for the entire northern one-half of the City.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-18
General Plan Chapter Goals
Noise Goal N-1 A quiet and healthful environment with minimal noise intrusion.

Goal N-2 A pattern of land uses that protects residents and other sensitive receptors from excessive noise.

Conservation and
Open Space
Goal COS-1 A community that builds resilience to climate change by prioritizing nature-based solutions and ensuring equitable access to healthy open spaces and recreational resources for all residents and visitors, regardless of income, race, ability, or neighborhood, while supporting ecological health and community well-being.

Goal COS-2 A community that conserves the important natural resources of Pismo Beach for the community’s health, safety and enjoyment, including air quality, renewable energy, geology and soils, minerals, water quality and supply, and dark skies.

Goal COS-3 A community that protects and enhances scenic roadways and vistas.

Goal COS-4 A community that provides and protects a variety of conservation areas such as the ocean and beaches, bluffs, dunes, foothills, marshes, creeks, and wetlands that act as suitable coastal and inland habitat, migratory corridors, and ecologically valuable topography.

Goal COS-5 A community that celebrates and protects its historical, tribal cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources.

Circulation Goal CE-1 A circulation system that supports safe and efficient travel for all modes of transportation.

Goal CE-2 The City’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities encourages and meets the walking and bicycling needs of the City.

Goal CE-3 Pismo Beach has convenient parking that enables access to local and visitor serving businesses and amenities, recreational opportunities, and the coastline.

Goal CE-4 Use of public transit and seasonal shuttle services is promoted to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the community.

Goal CE-5 A well connected City that has safe rail and truck movement of people and goods.

Goal CE-6 A balanced, multimodal transportation network that supports the local economy while maintaining community character and an aesthetically pleasing street design.

Goal CE-7 Promote the consistency between local and regional planning and explore funding opportunities for local and regional operations and improvements.

2.4.4 General Plan Land Use Designations and Density
The proposed land use designations establish the type, location and relation of land uses planned in the City. The maximum permitted land use densities and intensities are identified in the GP/LCP Update for these land use designations. The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains more detailed provisions and standards. More than one zoning district may be consistent with a single GP/LCP land use designation. As the standards for each land use designation are applied to future development projects and land use decisions, properties will gradually transition from one use to another, and land uses and intensities will gradually shift to align with the intent of the GP/LCP Update. Within the future SOI area identified on Figure 2-3, future uses may be developed subject to annexation to the City of Pismo Beach in compliance with procedures identified by the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Table 2-4 provides a description of the proposed land use designations. Table 2-5 summarizes the density and intensity ranges for each land use designation, as well as the total existing acreage in each land use category. Figure 2-6 shows the proposed land use designations, which illustrates the

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-19
distribution of the proposed land use designations in correlation to the street network and natural landscapes in the City.

Table 2-4 Land Use Designations
Land Use Designation Description
Low-Density Residential
Residential areas that are appropriate for neighborhoods of detached, single-family homes based on suitable site characteristics, access, and available public services and utilities. Allowable densities range from one to eight dwelling units per acre.

Medium-Density Residential Residential areas that are appropriate for neighborhoods of single-family and multi- family homes. Allowable densities range from nine to fifteen dwelling units per acre.

High-Density Residential
Residential areas that are appropriate for hotels and medium- and high-density multi-family dwellings. Allowable densities range from sixteen to thirty units per acre.

Very High-Density Residential
Overlay
An overlay district for new high-density affordable housing projects that address housing needs in the city by establishing development regulations and incentives.

Allowable densities range from twenty to fifty units per acre, exclusive of units added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to state law. All residential units within this overlay (exclusive of units added by a density bonus awarded pursuant to state law) must be affordable to moderate-income or below households for a minimum of fifty-five (55) years.

Mobile Home Park
The mobile home land use designation is intended to apply to mobile home parks and mobile home subdivisions. The maximum density for mobile home park is 12 units per acre.

Commercial
Areas that are appropriate for pedestrian-scale retail shopping, office, visitor- serving, cultural, and personal service uses. The maximum allowable floor area ratio for commercial development is 2.0.

Resort Commercial Areas that are suitable for recreational vehicle parks and visitor-serving uses. The maximum allowable floor area ratio for resort commercial development is 1.25.

Central Commercial
Areas for intensive retail commercial, recreational, and cultural uses, oriented towards pedestrian visitors. The maximum allowable floor area ratio for central commercial development is 1.25.

Mixed-Use
Community-serving locations that encourage mutually beneficial uses for the convenience of local residents, including retail, food markets, drug stores, health services, and professional offices, and mixed use projects including commercial, residential, hotels and motels, and other development types. The maximum allowable residential density is 30 units per acre while the maximum allowable floor area ratio for commercial development is 2.0.

Industrial
Areas that are appropriate for more intensive commercial and non-polluting, light manufacturing and industrial uses. The maximum allowable floor area ratio for industrial development is 1.5.

Public/Semi Public Areas that are appropriate for public and semi-public uses such as parks and public facilities, schools, public parking lots and garages, and government offices.

Open Space
Areas with significant natural resources, environmentally sensitive habitats, and/or scenic views to be protected, including hillsides, waterways, coastal and hillside view corridors, public beaches, and parks. Open space lands are not intended to be intensively developed with buildings or other structures but can be used for recreational purposes.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-20
Table 2-5 Land Use Density/Intensity Limits
Land Use Designations
Floor Area Ration
(FAR)/Density Height (feet)1,2
Implementing Zones
Total
Acreage
Coastal Zone/Non-
Coastal Zone Coastal Zone
Low-Density Residential 1 to 8 units per acre 25 R-1, R-R 76.5 Medium-Density
Residential
9 to 15 units per acre 25 - 35 R-2, R-R 247.5
High-Density Residential 16 to 30 units per acre 25 - 35 R-3, R-R 22.2 Very High-Density
Residential Overlay
20 to 50 units per acre 35-453 R-3 1.1
Mobile Home Park Maximum 12 units per
acre
- M-H 58.5
Commercial Maximum FAR of 2.0 25 - 42 R-4, R-R, C-R, C-1, C-2, C-M

32.5 Resort Commercial Maximum FAR of 1.25 35 RR, R-4, and CR 73.9 Central Commercial Maximum FAR of 1.25 35 R-4, R-R, MU 66.4 Mixed-Use Residential 1.25
maximum
Commercial uses: 2.0
maximum
25 - 35 C-1, C-2, MU 57.2
Industrial Maximum FAR of 0.5 25 C-M 30.2
Public/Semi Public Maximum FAR of 2.0 25 G 468.38
Open Space N/A 15 OS-1, OS-R 32.21

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-21
Figure 2-6 Proposed Land Use Designations

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-22

2.4.5 Key Updates
The proposed GP/LCP Update includes the following key updates to the existing GP/LCP to achieve the community’s vision for Pismo Beach through 2040:
 Addressing sea level rise and resiliency throughout;
 Encouraging mixed-use, particularly in the downtown area and focused on affordability;  Updates to comply with current State law; and
 Address lower-cost visitor-serving accommodations.

2.4.6 City Growth/General Plan Buildout
In 2019, the City’s estimated population was 8,237 people, number of housing units was 5,832, and number of jobs was 4,919 (Department of Finance [DOF] 2020 and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments [SLOCOG] 2017). Table 2-6 identifies the projected development at full buildout associated with the planned distribution of land uses described in the Land Use and Community Design Element of the GP/LCP Update. As shown in this table, full buildout of the GP/LCP Update would result in the development of 288 vacant or underutilized properties. Full buildout of the GP/LCP Update would result an estimated increase of 1,111 housing units and 783,268 square feet of non-residential building area in Pismo Beach. The GP/LCP Update would represent an estimated population increase of 1,979 people and an employment increase of 545 jobs. The methodology for the projecting development at full buildout is included in Appendix B.

Table 2-6 GP/LCP Update Projected Development at Full Buildout Land Use
Number of Vacant
or Underutilized
Parcels
Potential
Increase in
Dwelling Units
Potential
Increase in Non-
Residential
Building Area (sf)
Potential
Increase in
Population
Potential
Increase in Jobs
Commercial 42 - 420,928 - 242
Central
Commercial
26 - 248,000 - 33
High Density
Residential
139 162 - 289 -12
Mixed Use 48 722 108,000 1,221 272
Medium Density
Residential
32 228 - 471 -
Public/Semi Public 1 -1 6,340 -2 10
Total 288 1,111 783,268 1,979 545
Note: Slight variations in population per dwelling unit are due to the prescribed building typology assumptions from Urban Footprint.

See Appendix B for details of the buildout methodology.

With much of the City currently “built out,” or developed, and the preservation of open space a priority, undeveloped land available for development is limited in Pismo Beach. Most of the development over the next 20 years is likely to take place on sites that are currently vacant and or underutilized. In addition, future development may come from expanded development on sites with existing structures or redevelopment of sites and structures that come to the end of their useful life over the next 20 years.

Project Description

Final Environmental Impact Report 2-23
There are a number of smaller vacant sites in Pismo Beach, but many of these sites face substantial development constraints. Larger vacant lots are located in the Sunset Palisades, Pismo Heights and Oak Park Heights planning areas, east of planned residential developments. Ultimately, many of these vacant lots are located on steep slopes or face other environmental constraints, limiting development opportunities. Most vacant and underutilized sites outside of constrained areas tend to be in the Downtown Core and along the U.S. 101 corridor in Shell Beach. Much of the growth and change in Pismo Beach over the next 20 years is anticipated to occur in these areas, which are well served with existing public facilities and services, including transportation facilities, and commercial and community uses.

In addition to the future development described above, the Circulation Element envisions multimodal circulation improvements, including intersection signalization, intersection improvements, and new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Additional improvements included in the Circulation Element update include:
 Bello & Price Canyon: Conversion of the stop-controlled intersection to a signalized intersection with minor geometric realignments and utility modifications.  Dolliver Street (Highway 1): In addition to left turn pockets previously envisioned in the 2018 GP/LCP, implement right turn pockets in lieu of or in combination with left turn pockets along Dolliver Street/Wadsworth Avenue.

2.5 Zoning Code and Coastal Implementation Plan
Amendments
To maintain consistency with the GP/LCP Update, the project includes a Zoning Code Update which includes the Coastal Implementation Plan. Amendments included as part of the project include:
 Updating the allowed uses in all zones as necessary for consistency with the General Plan Land Use Designations.
 Establishing new zoning district(s) as necessary to implement the GP/LCP Update.  Updating other development standards as necessary to implement the GP/LCP Update. This will include maximum height, setbacks, design standards and other standards.  Updating administration and permitting to integrate coastal permit processes. Additional coastal-specific issues to be addressed include:
 Parking and transportation demand management
 Coastal access, beach use, and special events
 Visitor-serving uses and tourism
 Sea-level rise and coastal resilience
 Stormwater management and water quality
The Zoning Code Update also addresses other issues, such as neighborhood compatibility and economic development, consistent with direction in the GP/LCP Update.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

2-24

2.6 Required Discretionary Approvals
Following recommendations from the Planning Commission, the Pismo Beach City Council will need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the project:
 Certify the Final PEIR
 Adopt the proposed GP/LCP Update
 Adopt the Zoning Code Update
 Adopt the Coastal Implementation Plan
 Adopt the Coastal Land Use Plan
The California Coastal Commission will also need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the project:
 Certify the GP/LCP Update
 Certify the Zoning Code Update
 Certify the Coastal Implementation Plan
 Certify the Coastal Land Use Plan

Environmental Setting

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed project.

More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
Pismo Beach is located along the Pacific Ocean in western San Luis Obispo County, approximately eight miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo County is located in the central coast region of California. Pismo Beach is bordered by the beach and ocean on the southwest and hills of the Santa Lucia Mountains to the northeast. The Cities of Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande are south and east of Pismo Beach and the unincorporated community of Avila Beach is just north of Pismo Beach. The majority of the City is within the coastal zone. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description show the regional location of Pismo Beach, the City boundary, and coastal zone boundary within Pismo Beach.

3.2 Physical Setting

3.2.1 General Geographic Setting
Pismo Beach occupies a coastal terrace, framed on the southwest by the Pacific Ocean and on the northeast by the Santa Lucia Mountains. Regional access to the city is provided by U.S. Highway 101, which runs through the length of the City, as well as State Route 1, which extends from the southwest of the City. Local elevations range from sea level to approximately 500 feet above mean sea level.

3.2.2 Geologic Setting
Pismo Beach is located at the tectonically active southern end of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. This area contains geologic units ranging in age from Jurassic-aged to present-aged. A list of the geologic units mapped at the surface within Pismo Beach is presented in Table 4.6-1 and mapped in Figure 4.6-1 in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils.

There are several faults in the County that have the potential to affect the City, including the Los Osos Fault, the Hosgri fault, the Oceanic-West Huasna fault, the Rinconada fault, the East Huasna fault, the La Panza fault, the San Andreas fault, and the Wilmar Avenue fault. Other faults not included in this list, as well as faults located outside of the Pismo Beach region, may be capable of generating earthquakes that could cause damage in the planning area. Known fault lines are shown on Figure 4.6-2 in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils.

3.2.3 Hydrologic Setting
The City extends across two watersheds of the South County sub-region: Pismo Creek Watershed and Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed. The major surface water bodies in the City are Pismo Creek, Pismo Creek Estuary, and Meadow Creek, which are within the Pismo Creek Watershed in the

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

3-2
southeastern portion of the City. The watershed boundaries and primary creeks providing drainage are detailed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

3.2.4 Natural Setting
Pismo Beach’s key natural features include its coastline, estuary, and woodlands comprising diverse shrub, herbaceous, terrestrial, and aquatic habitats. Pismo Beach has a wide diversity of tree (hardwood and coniferous forests, oak woodlands), shrub (chaparrals, coastal scrubs), and herbaceous (grasslands) terrestrial habitat types. Remaining areas include developed and sparsely vegetated/barren land cover types. The City has identified Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), which include portions of Pismo State Beach, Pismo Marsh, Price Canyon, Pismo Creek, Pismo Preserve, Meadow Creek, dunes habitat of the Pismo State Beach, and the Monarch Butterfly Grove. Natural features and habitats the City are described in detail in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of this report (refer to Figures 4.3-1, 4.3-2, and 4.3-3, which depict vegetation communities, wetlands, and critical habitat in the City).

3.2.5 Climate
The planning area is characterized by a typical Mediterranean coastal climate, which is generally dry in the summer with mild, wet winters. The climate is moderated by the marine influence of the Pacific Ocean, which can bring persistent periods of wind and fog, especially during spring and summer months. The Western Regional Climate Center maintains average weather data for city.

According to data collected at this weather station the warmest month of the year is September with an average maximum temperature of 72 degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest month of the year is January with an average minimum temperature of 42 degrees Fahrenheit. Rainfall is concentrated in the winter months with the wettest months of the year being January and February, with average monthly rainfall totals of 3.6 and 3.5 inches, respectively (WRRC 2005).

3.3 Baseline and Cumulative Project Setting

3.3.1 EIR Baseline
Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “should include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” Section 15125 states that this approach “normally constitute[s] the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” This EIR evaluates impacts against existing conditions for the baseline year of 2019, which is the baseline year used in the Circulation, Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, and Noise Elements of the GP/LCP Update. In addition, the buildout projections in the GP/LCP Update were based on the 2019 data from the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office. Therefore, 2019 was used as the existing conditions year in the EIR analyses. As discussed further below, the NOP was released in January 2021 during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which has resulted in temporary changes to the existing economic and physical conditions in California, San Luis Obispo County, and in Pismo Beach. As a result, 2019 more accurately reflects the baseline conditions in the City prior to the pandemic. Therefore, it was determined that a comparison to 2019 baseline conditions would provide the most relevant information for the public, responsible agencies and City decision-makers.

For some issue areas, this EIR also includes consideration of impacts against a forecast future

Environmental Setting

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3
baseline condition in addition to the current baseline conditions, controlling for impacts caused by population growth and other factors that would occur whether or not the GP/LCP Update is adopted. For certain issue areas (including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions/climate change, energy, noise and transportation/circulation), impacts would occur as a result of background population growth, urbanization and volume of average daily traffic increases in the region that would occur by 2040, with or without implementation of the GP/LCP Update. Thus, for these issue areas, a comparison to a future 2040 baseline is provided for informational purposes. However, all impact determinations are based on a comparison to 2019 baseline conditions.

As stated above, the NOP was released during the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 4, 2020, the Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency in California as a result of the threat of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). On March 18, 2020, the Emergency Services Director for San Luis Obispo County issued a Shelter at Home Order for the County of San Luis Obispo. The threat of COVID-19, as well as the subsequent State and County proclamations and orders, have resulted in temporary changes to the existing economic and physical conditions in California and San Luis Obispo County regionally and in Pismo Beach locally. Temporary changes to existing environmental conditions have included reduced vehicle traffic and associated noise and pollutant emissions, reduced electricity consumption. In addition, the timing and likelihood of cumulative development and regional buildout assumptions may be affected during or after the threat of COVID-19. The magnitude and duration of the State of Emergency and associated State and County orders, or future orders related to the threat of COVID-19 cannot be ascertained. Accordingly, the effect of COVID-19 on future environmental conditions effects of COVID-19 is currently speculative. CEQA Guidelines §15064(d)(3) states that:

An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines §15154 states that:

If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact.

It would be speculative for the EIR to assume what changes to cumulative baseline conditions might occur as a result of COVID-19 or the subsequent State and County proclamations and orders.

3.3.2 Approach for Impact Analysis
The programmatic nature of the GP/LCP Update necessitates a general approach to the evaluation of existing conditions and impacts associated with the proposed project. As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a regionwide assessment of the impacts of the GP/LCP Update. Because the EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions over 20 years into the future, analysis relies on program-level and qualitative evaluation. Quantitative analyses are provided where applicable with available information. During future stages in planning and implementation of specific elements of the GP/LCP Update, project-specific CEQA documents will be prepared by the appropriate project implementation agency.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

3-4

3.3.3 Approach for Cumulative Analysis
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone, or together with other projects. The CEQA Guidelines state: “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). A cumulative impact of concern under CEQA occurs when the net result of combined individual impacts compounds or increases other overall environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). In other words, cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

CEQA does not require an analysis of incremental effects that are not cumulatively considerable nor is there a requirement to discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.

Cumulative Impact Methodology
The GP/LCP Update addresses cumulative conditions by design. As such, the environmental analysis of the GP/LCP Update presented throughout this EIR is a cumulative analysis consistent with CEQA policies. Furthermore, this EIR contains detailed analysis of regional (cumulative) impacts, which are differentiated from localized impacts that may occur at the city level.

The cumulative impact analyses included in each of the environmental issue areas addressed in Section 4 of this EIR examine impacts associated with implementation of the GP/LCP Update, in addition to implementation of projected development for San Luis Obispo County, which surrounds Pismo Beach, to address cumulative effects from growth extending beyond the planning area.

When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, present and probable future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a summary of projections in an adopted planning document, or a combination of the two approaches. The cumulative analysis presented below uses a projections-based approach. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15130B)(1). Land use and growth projections for the City, which are the subject of analysis throughout this EIR, are combined with the growth projections for the adjoining County. San Luis Obispo County adjoins the city to the north, south, and east. The County is largely agricultural, with population concentrated in four regions: North County, North Coast, San Luis Obispo and South County (San Luis Obispo County 2015). Therefore, for most issue areas, San Luis Obispo County is referred to in this analysis as the “cumulative impact analysis area.” Table 3-1 shows the estimated 2016 population and projected population and housing units for the planning area as well as the cumulative impact analysis area. However, for some topics where cumulative impacts are more localized (e.g., noise) or broader (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions), the cumulative impact area may be smaller or larger than the County. If a different cumulative impact area other than the County was used, it is noted under the “cumulative impact” section in the applicable subsection of Chapter 4.

Environmental Setting

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5
Table 3-1 Population and Housing Projections of Cumulative Analysis Area, 2019-2040 Population Housing Units
2019a 20402 20191 20402
City of Pismo Beach 8,237 10,874b 5,832 7,125b
San Luis Obispo County 278,355 346,968b 122,810 150,858b Sources:
1 California Department of Finance [DOF] 2020. The existing conditions used for GP/LCP Update buildout projections was based on the 2019 data from the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office. Therefore, 2019 was used as the existing conditions year in the analysis for population and housing.
2 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2017. The GP/LCP Update buildout projections were based on a maximum buildout scenario. Therefore, the SLOCOG “high scenario” for population growth was used in this analysis.

As shown in Table 3-1, the City comprises approximately 3.0 percent of the existing County population and 4.7 percent of the existing number of housing units in the County. By 2040, this proportion is expected to remain similar (approximately 3.1 percent of the County population and

4.7 percent of housing units in the County). Thus, under both current and forecasted future conditions, the City represents a relatively small portion of the growth in the cumulative analysis impact area.

Analysis of the cumulative effects of the GP/LCP Update for each environmental issue area is presented at the ends of Sections 4.1 through 4.15.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

3-6

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis

Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines §15382:

Means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4-2
Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines also requires the following specific Mandatory Findings of Significance be addressed as part of the environmental review for the project:
 The potential for the project to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory;  Project impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects); and
 Environmental effects of the project which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources, describes the project’s potential effects on plant and animal species populations, habitats, communities, and migratory patterns. Section 4.4, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources, describes the project’s potential effects on important historical and prehistorical cultural and tribal cultural resources on the project site. Potential adverse environmental effects to human beings are discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.11, Noise. Furthermore, as discussed above, each environmental analysis section of the EIR concludes with a discussion of the project’s contribution to cumulative effects.

The Executive Summary of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed project.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1

4.1 Aesthetics
The analysis in this section describes current visual conditions in and around Pismo Beach and evaluates the potential aesthetic and visual impacts of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update, including impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character and quality, and light and glare.

4.1.1 Setting
a. Existing Visual Conditions
The City of Pismo Beach is situated adjacent to the Pacific Ocean in the southwestern portion of San Luis Obispo County. The primary arterial roadways in Pismo Beach include State Route (SR) 1 (also referred to as Highway 1) and U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101). Views west of Highway 1 and U.S. 101 include beaches and sand dunes, rocky bluffs along the coast, and cityscape of Pismo Beach. East of Highway 1 and U.S. 101, the Santa Lucia Range and surrounding foothills, with scattered developed on the lower elevations, provide a backdrop for the City. Northeast of U.S. 101, the City abuts the unincorporated Pismo Preserve property, which offers panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean, Pismo Beach, and adjacent coastal communities. Much of the beaches and undeveloped coastal lands along the western edge of Pismo Beach are designated as permanent open space for conservation and recreation, under the jurisdiction of the California State Parks System. b. Scenic Resources
Most communities identify scenic resources as important assets that form community identity.

Scenic resources can be natural or man-made features such as trees, rock formations, historic buildings, and public art. As described in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update, scenic resources in Pismo Beach include scenic roadways and scenic vistas. These are described below and depicted in Figure 4.1-1.

Scenic Vistas and Views
A scenic vista provides views of an aesthetically valued landscape that benefits the public. The term “vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area. This designation may be officially designated or unofficially defined by a set of criteria. As described in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update, the values used to designate scenic vistas in Pismo Beach include the City’s small beach town character and sweeping coastal views. The Land Use Element of the GP/LCP Update also recognizes the Pacific Ocean, the beach, and the abutting land as unique natural resources that provide value to the community. The City designates specific areas along the coast that offer panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and coastline as scenic vistas, as shown in Figure 4.1-1.

Scenic Roadways
California’s Scenic Highway Program designates scenic highways with the intention of protecting these corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of adjacent lands. A highway is designated as an eligible scenic highway when the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) determines that the roadway corridor qualifies for official status. The status of an officially designated scenic highway changes when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-2
Figure 4.1-1 Scenic Vistas and Roadways

Source: City of Pismo Beach. 2021. Conservation and Open Space Element.

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated (Caltrans 2018). Scenic highways must have an approved Corridor Protection Program and remain in compliance to maintain scenic highway status. According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Map (2018) and list of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways (2018), Highway 1 and U.S. 101 are eligible for designation as State Scenic Highways, but not officially designated.

As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the City has designated several scenic roadways throughout Pismo Beach that offer views of a variety of landscapes. The policies and actions provided in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element supplement federal and State mandates relating to scenic resources and highways. The City has designated the following roadways as scenic:
 U.S. 101
 Price Canyon Road
 Highway 1/Dolliver Street
 Shell Beach Road
 Ocean Boulevard
c. Visual Character
As described in Section 2.3.3 of Chapter 2, Project Description, Pismo Beach is organized into ten neighborhood planning areas. The character-defining features of Pismo Beach vary by area of the City and generally include density, building height, building bulk, the location of buildings on a lot, lot size, architectural style, exterior colors and materials, similarities and differences between neighboring structures, and the year in which structures were built. Table 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description, shows the relationship between the planning areas in the GP/LCP Update and the 1992 General Plan planning areas. Figure 2-5 shows the neighborhood planning areas in the City, as defined by their unique features. As shown and described in detail in the Project Description, the 10 planning areas include the following:
 Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/South Palisades
 North Spyglass/Spyglass
 St. Andrews/Spindrift
 Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves
 Motel District
 Downtown Core
 Pismo Creek/Pismo Marsh
 Oak Park Heights
 Pismo Heights
 Freeway Foothills/Mattie Road
d. Light and Glare Conditions
Light and glare from indoor or outdoor uses can reduce visibility of the night sky, create potential hazards to drivers, and be a nuisance to residential areas. The City has typical light conditions found in suburban areas (e.g., roadway lighting, commercial parking lot and building lighting, residential buildings, headlights from motor vehicles). Sources of daytime glare include direct beam sunlight

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-4
and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other shiny reflective surfaces.

Nighttime lighting and glare are produced by both stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, decorative landscape lighting, lighted signs, and streetlights. As discussed in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element, the main sources of light pollution in Pismo Beach are streetlights and exterior lighting for the downtown area, as well as lighting along U.S. 101.The primary source of mobile nighttime light is motor vehicle headlights. Sources of light and glare in the downtown area and residential areas include street lighting along roadways, lit building exteriors and signage, and parking lot lighting.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
No existing federal regulations pertain to the visual resources in the City. b. State Regulations
California Coastal Act and California Coastal Commission The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act; Public Resources Code Section 30000) and the California Coastal Commission, the State’s coastal protection and planning agency, were established by voter initiative to plan for and regulate new development, and to create policies to protect public access to and along the shoreline. Section 30251, Scenic and Visual Qualities, of the Coastal Act mandates that scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas be considered and protected as resources of public importance. Pursuant to the Coastal Act, permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas designated in the Department of Parks and Recreation California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan (CCPRP) and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

Caltrans Scenic Highways
Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designations as a State scenic highway is based on the vividness, intactness, and unity of their view corridors, as described in Caltrans’ Scenic Highway Guidelines (Caltrans 2008):
 Vividness is the extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity, and contrast of visual elements. A vivid landscape makes an immediate and lasting impression on the viewer.
 Intactness is the integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions (e.g., buildings, structures, equipment, grading).  Unity is the extent to which development is sensitive to and visually harmonious with the natural landscape.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
c. Local Regulations
Local Coastal Program and Coastal Land Use Plan
To ensure maximum public access to the coast and public recreation areas, the Coastal Act directs each local government lying within the Coastal Zone to prepare an LCP consistent with Section 30501 of the Coastal Act, in consultation with the Coastal Commission, and with public participation.

Until the LCP has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and certified compliant with the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission retains permitting authority within the portion of a local jurisdiction located in the Coastal Zone. Section 30519(a) of the Coastal Act specifies that once an LCP has been developed for a municipality, development review authority is delegated to that local government.

The City of Pismo Beach GP/LCP is a combined document that meets both the State General Plan requirements and State Coastal Act requirements. The City’s current GP/LCP includes two parts as required by the Coastal Act: a Land Use Plan (LUP), last updated in 1993, and the Implementation Plan (IP), last updated in 1983, with several amendments to both documents occurring since. The LUP consists of goals, policies, and actions that address the requirements of the Coastal Act and are integrated into applicable elements of the General Plan. The IP provides the zoning regulations that implement the LUP goals, policies, and actions, and serves as the City’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance.

New development in the City’s Coastal Zone is required to be consistent with the combined GP/LCP and Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Should conflicts arise between the GP/LCP other local planning documents, the policies and regulations of the GP/LCP take precedence within the Coastal Zone.

General Plan
California Government Code Section 65300 describes the scope and authority of local jurisdictions to prepare, adopt, and amend general plans. Communities prepare general plans to guide the long- term physical development of the jurisdiction, and any land within the jurisdiction’s SOI. At a minimum, the California Government Code requires general plans to address land use, circulation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety issues. As stated above, the City’s current GP/LCP includes the LUP, last updated in 1993, and the IP, last updated in 1983. The General Plan is currently undergoing an update that includes a Conservation and Open Space Element and a Land Use Element, which will govern aesthetics and visual resources in the City.

The Conservation and Open Space Element guides the protection of natural and cultural resources and conservation areas important to the environment, quality-of-life, and visual character of Pismo Beach. This element identifies local goals that present how the City’s natural environment will look in 2040 and presents policies that measure progress toward the goals and actions that identify the regulatory tools the City can use to meet those goals.

The Land Use Element provides the tools to direct new development to preserve and enhance the character and natural resources of Pismo Beach. This element identifies local goals that present how the pattern of land use development in Pismo Beach will look in 2040 and presents policies that measure progress toward the goals and actions that identify the regulatory tools the City can use to meet those goals. The Land Use Element also guides planning decisions in the Coastal Zone that ensures public coastal access, while maintaining coastal preservation and protection. This element provides policies for coastal development that further enhance the requirements provided within the Coastal Act.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-6
Pismo Beach Municipal Code – Title 17 (Zoning)
The Zoning Code (Title 17) of the City of Pismo Beach Municipal Code implements the General Plan, particularly the Land Use and Community Design Element. While General Plan designations are more generalized in nature, the Zoning Code and zoning districts provide specific controls on land use, density or intensity of development, and development standards to implement the City’s GP/LCP goals and policies. The Zoning Code provides standards for protection of visual resources, compatible design, and illumination for new development in the City that is associated with zoning.

Zoning Code Chapter 17.45 establishes standards for coastal bluff development specifically to protect public views and avoid adverse visual impacts. Zoning Code Chapter 17.68 provides a list of prohibited signage in the City. To maintain consistency with the GP/LCP Update, the Zoning Code is currently undergoing an update including development standards to implement the GP/LCP Update.

This will include maximum height, setbacks, design standards and other standards, which may involve updates to existing standards effecting visual resources and lighting and glare in the City.

Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan
In November 2014, the City adopted a strategic plan to help shape future development in the City’s Downtown. The Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan is a community-based visioning and guidance tool for future growth and change in the downtown area, and addresses the following design issues:
 Vision statement
 Vision plan
 Branding
 Districts
 Land uses
 Opportunity sites
 Placemaking
 Accessibility
 Beach access
 Long-term pier plaza vision
 Pier plaza interim option
 Plaza features
 Plaza improvements
 Public safety
 Circulation concepts
 Pedestrian and bike circulation
 Streetscape
 Parking
Shell Beach Design Standards and Guidelines
In February 2017, the City adopted residential, commercial, and mixed-use design guidelines for the community of Shell Beach. The guidelines address the following design issues:
 Site planning and neighborhood character
 Scale and massing
 Roof forms and roof decks
 Architectural features and articulation
 Garages, carports, and accessory structures
 Materials and colors
 Landscape areas and fencing
 Good neighbor
 Incentives for single-family residential (only applicable to single family residential)

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
 Parking (only applicable to commercial/mixed use development)  Utilitarian and trash areas (only applicable to commercial/mixed use development)  Lighting (only applicable to commercial/mixed use development)  Signage (only applicable to commercial/mixed use development)  Materials and Colors (only applicable to commercial/mixed use development)  Public Spaces, Open Space and Landscape areas (only applicable to commercial/mixed use development)

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
The assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Different viewers react to views and aesthetic conditions differently. This evaluation measures the existing visual environment of the City, described above, against the proposed action (implementation of the GP/LCP Update), analyzing the nature of the anticipated change. The GP/LCP Update is an update to existing plans and does not contain specific development proposals. This analysis focuses on land use changes envisioned under the GP/LCP Update and the aesthetic impacts on the community in terms of arrangement of built to open space, density and intensity of development, and height, according to the thresholds of significance discussed below. b. Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the GP/LCP Update may have a significant adverse impact if it would do any of the following:

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway
In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings; or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-8
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Threshold 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact AES-1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE GP/LCP UPDATE POLICIES, ZONING CODE, DOWNTOWN

STRATEGIC PLAN, AND THE SHELL BEACH DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES WOULD PROTECT VISUAL AND

AESTHETIC RESOURCES IN THE CITY FROM POTENTIAL AESTHETIC IMPACTS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GENERAL PLAN/ LCP UPDATE. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As shown in Figure 4.1-1, there are several points along the coast offering panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and coastline that the City has designated as scenic vistas. According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Map (2019) and List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways (2019), Highway 1 and U.S. 101 are eligible for designation as State Scenic Highways, but not officially designated. As shown in Figure 4.1-1, the City has designated several scenic roadways throughout Pismo Beach that offer views of a variety of landscapes, including U.S. 101, Price Canyon Road, Highway 1/Dolliver Street, Shell Beach Road, and Ocean Boulevard.

Pismo Beach is organized into 10 neighborhood planning areas in the GP/LCP Update, each with its own name and unique characteristics. All of these planning areas are predominantly built-out to their maximum development potential based on their designated land uses and associated density limits, with little to no developable areas remaining. The GP/LCP Update would largely preserve the existing pattern of land uses and, thus, scenic views from scenic vistas in the City. However, depending on the location, orientation, and height of new infill development and redeveloped properties, scenic vistas and scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, could be blocked or otherwise adversely affected in scenic areas as a result of the GP/LCP Update. Implementation of the following goals, policies, and actions in the Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element would minimize adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources:

Land Use Element
Goal LU-1: A community with a variety of well-regulated land uses that support the diverse needs of both residents and visitors.
 Policy LU-1.6: Preserve Open Space. Open space lands, including public and private parks, shall not be developed intensively with buildings or other structures.  Action LU-1.6b: Citywide Open Space Network. The City shall include the lake, creeks, and marsh as part of a Citywide and regional network of open space, parks, and – where appropriate – trails, all fostering understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife.
 Action LU-1.6d: View Corridors. Through appropriate zoning, open space shall be arranged to maximize view corridors from public viewing areas to protect and maintain views of both the ocean and coastal foothills, as well as the visual sense of the coastal terrace landform.

Accordingly, common open space shall have continuity throughout the Coastal Zone and shall not be interrupted by fences or other structures.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
Goal LU-2: A community that strives to maintain a classic California and small-town beach atmosphere.
 Policy LU-2.1: Neighborhood Preservation. The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance the City’s neighborhoods and strive to preserve and enhance their identity.  Action LU-2.1c: Public Views Protection. The City’s scenic and visual qualities shall be considered and protected. All development shall be sited and designed to avoid having a significant adverse impact on significant public views (which shall include blue water views of the ocean and views of the undeveloped open foothills as seen from Highway 101 (see also Policy COS-2.1e); minimize alteration of natural landforms; be of appropriate building scale and include articulation for visual interest (and to avoid ‘boxy’ and monolithic designs); be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area; and, where feasible, restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. Building heights shall be limited to the applicable height provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Protection of sensitive habitats, natural landforms, scenic resources, and other coastal resources shall be a priority in all City actions and decisions, and all development standards (including with respect to height, setback, density, lot coverage, etc.) shall be interpreted as maximums (or minimums) that shall be reduced (or increased) to protect and enhance such resources and meet LCP objectives to the maximum extent feasible.
 Action LU-2.1d: Side and Rear Yard View Corridors. Where side and rear yards provide a view from the street to the ocean or a view to attractive hills and valleys, the yards should be maintained as open visual access corridors the width of the required yard setback. These areas shall be open to the sky and free from all visual obstructions (except for a see-through gate or fence) from the front property line to the rear property line. Design review shall be required to implement this action item. Existing structures as of the date of adoption of the 1993 General Plan/Local Coastal Program are exempted from this policy.  Action LU-2.1e: Scenic Views Adjacent to the City. The City shall encourage the County to retain the Ontario Hill and the hillsides adjacent to U.S. Highway 101 and Price Canyon Road as open space or grazing land and prohibit development on slopes over 30%.  Action LU-2.2d: Special Tree Preservation. A number of special and important trees or tree grouping exist within Pismo Beach which shall be preserved. The types of trees that shall be preserved include oak trees.
 Action LU-2.2h: Special Landscape Features. Special landscape features shall be preserved including but not limited to:
− The large rock in the U.S. Highway 101 center divide
− Rock formations in the Judkins School and Boosinger Park areas, including donated hillside lots
− Dinosaur Caves

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-10
Goal LU-3: City Design. A functional community that is designed with compatible facades, architectural styles, and colors.
 Policy LU-3.1: Building Site Design. Enforce design criteria for new development within the City.  Action LU-3.1e: Special Design Considerations. Special design considerations shall be made for areas of the City where special concern for urban design is necessary. These sites and features shall be included and addressed in the Zoning Ordinance, Architectural Review Overlay Zone. These areas may include, but are not limited to, places where preserving views and minimizing view impairment is a concern.

Goal LU-7: A community where growth is concentrated in corridors and neighborhood centers where adaptive land reuse will contribute to a high quality of life for the entire community.  Policy LU-7.1: Growth Areas. Prioritize growth in areas that complement adjacent neighborhoods, consider market and policy demand for housing and commercial needs, and revitalize economically obsolete uses.
 Action LU-7.1a: Existing Developed Areas. New residential, commercial, or industrial development shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50% of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.

See also Policy 5.3d, Transit-Oriented Development, for additional policy related for focusing development in proximity to transit.
 Policy LU-7.2: Adaptive Reuse. Support and incentivize adaptive reuse of buildings and sites to utilize existing infrastructure while enhancing the character of the community.  Action LU-7.2a: Incentivize Adaptive Reuse. Incentivize adaptive reuse projects through expedited and discounted permitting and density bonuses, where appropriate.

Goal LU-8: A community that protects and enhances natural and coastal resources within Pismo Beach.
 Policy LU-8.1: Natural Resources Compatibility. Require all land use proposals to respect, preserve and enhance, to the maximum extent feasible, the sensitive habitats, natural landforms, scenic resources, and other coastal resources of Pismo Beach. Development shall only be authorized when the proposed use is allowed per the applicable land use designation, and when it meets all applicable GP/LCP policies and standards.  Action LU-8.1a: Identify and Map Natural Resources. The City shall prepare and maintain geographic information systems-based maps of the City, identifying the natural resources such as wildlife habitats and open space, viewsheds, terrain, and hillsides. The natural resource map shall also show development constraints such as flood hazard areas, geological hazard areas, soil hazard areas (subsidence, liquefaction), and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The maps shall provide the basis of determining where urban development is most appropriate, and where other needs of the community, or requirements to protect coastal resources, outweigh the desire or need for urban development. As a result of the findings of these maps, the City shall re-evaluate its land use

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
designations and future plans for undeveloped areas and revise the Land Use Map accordingly. Any revisions to the land use designations or Land Use Map shall require a GP/LCP amendment certified by the CCC.

Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal COS-3: A community that protects and enhances scenic roadways and vistas.  Policy COS-3.1: Protect Scenic Resources. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. See Figure CO-1, Scenic Roadways and Vistas.

The policies identified in the GP/LCP Update would help preserve existing scenic vistas by incentivizing infill development and adaptive reuse to maintain the existing development pattern in the City. These policies and actions would also facilitate identification, designation, and protection of viewsheds and scenic vistas and by requiring new development to incorporate design features that protect or enhance existing scenic views and vistas. While General Plan designations are more generalized in nature, the Zoning Code and zoning districts provide specific controls on land use, density or intensity of development, and development standards to implement the City’s GP/LCP goals and policies. The Zoning Code provides standards for protection of visual resources, compatible design, and illumination for new development in the City that is associated with zoning.

Zoning Code Chapter 17.45 establishes standards for coastal bluff development specifically to protect public views and avoid adverse visual impacts. Zoning Code Chapter 17.68 provides a list of prohibited signage in the City.

New development or redevelopment facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would also be subject to the updated standards in the City Zoning Code, in association with the GP/LCP Update, relating to signage, design, and protection of visual resources in the City. Compliance with City’s Zoning Code requirements and the goals, policies, and actions proposed in the GP/LCP Update would protect scenic resources upon development and redevelopment facilitated by the project. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas or scenic resources in the City from implementation of the GP/LCP Update would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-12
Threshold 3: Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact AES-2 COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING STANDARDS AND GP/LCP UPDATE GOALS, POLICIES,

AND ACTIONS WOULD ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT COMPLEMENTS THE EXISTING

VISUAL CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF PISMO BEACH, AND DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH ZONING AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING SCENIC QUALITY. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON VISUAL CHARACTER AND QUALITY.

Pismo Beach is a small coastal community with much of the land use pattern already established by existing development. The City was founded in 1891 and incorporated in 1946, and is known for its natural features, ocean views, tourism, and small-town character. According to the City’s current (2020-2028) Housing Element, single-family attached and detached residences comprise more than two-thirds of all housing in the City. Mobile homes comprise 13 percent, and multiple-family housing comprises the remaining 18 percent of the housing stock. Most residential lots are small in area, and housing units have a mixture of styles and colors. Oak, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress, eucalyptus, monkey, and sycamore trees are concentrated in certain parts of the City, while some areas have few large trees, typical of a coastal plain in this part of California. The vegetated hillsides and coastline frame the City’s neighborhoods, providing landscape views from nearly every part of the City. As shown in described in Section 4.1.1(c), the aesthetic character of Pismo Beach is a result of the combined individual characteristics of the ten neighborhood planning areas, each of which have distinctive physical and social characteristics.

Residential and commercial uses are mostly concentrated west of U.S. 101, while open space and industrial uses are clustered mostly east of U.S. 101. Many local businesses are located in the Downtown Core and Motel District areas, within close proximity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. As described in the discussion of key updates to the GP/LCP in Chapter 2, Project Description, the GP/LCP Update encourages mixed uses in the downtown area and focused on affordability. This includes greater organization of uses in these areas on the City’s proposed land use diagram (refer to Figure 2-6) to guide future development and designate appropriate locations for land uses.

The GP/LCP Update would facilitate development for housing and mixed uses on the remaining vacant and underutilized parcels. There are a number of smaller vacant sites in Pismo Beach, but many of these sites face substantial development constraints. Larger vacant lots are located in the Sunset Palisades, Pismo Heights and Oak Park Heights planning areas, east of planned residential developments. Ultimately, many of these vacant lots are located on steep slopes or face other environmental constraints, limiting development opportunities. Most vacant and underutilized sites outside of constrained areas tend to be in the Downtown Core and along the U.S. 101 corridor in Shell Beach. Much of the growth and change in Pismo Beach over the next 20 years is anticipated to occur in these areas.

The Land Use Element of the GP/LCP Update specifically addresses the components of the City’s unique style that would be preserved as the City changes over time. This element is intended to direct the placement and character of future development, shaping where people will live, work, play, and shop in Pismo Beach in future years.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-13
The GP/LCP Update goal for the Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves planning area (Goal LU-12) is for a planning area focused on conserving the existing housing stock and character and improving the commercial and pedestrian environment of Shell Beach to enhance the beach community. The GP/LCP Update goal for the Downtown Core planning area (Goal LU-14) is for a vibrant Downtown area that acts as a destination for all, providing motel and hotel uses, as well as supporting uses such as commercial, mixed-use, high-density residential, and recreation. In addition to these goals and the goals, policies, and actions, listed under Impact AES-1, the following actions in the GP/LCP Update Land Use Elements would provide direction for the desired visual character and quality in Pismo Beach:
 Action LU-1.2h: Drive-Thru Services Prohibited. In order to maintain and promote a more pedestrian-oriented beach community character, as well as to reduce the high volume of vehicle trips attracted by drive-thru establishments, the City shall prohibit any new development of drive-thru services in restaurants, banks, dry cleaners and other business establishments in the Downtown Core and Shell Beach Planning Areas.  Action LU-1.3a: Mixed-Use Designation and Zoning District. Focus the mixed-use designation within the Downtown and create a mixed-use zoning designation for other areas appropriate for mixed-use as directed by this Element. Downtown mixed-use shall be community serving for local residents, including food markets, drug stores, and health services, and for mixed use projects including commercial, residential, hotels, and motels, and other multiple-use projects.
 Action LU-2.1f: Special Communities. New development shall, where appropriate, protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses.  Action LU-2.1g: Context Sensitive Development. Modify the zoning ordinance to include bulk and scale regulations consistent with existing community character. These regulations should protect coastal views, encourage appropriate building articulation, and avoid domineering over other development in the adjacent vicinity.  Policy LU-9.2: Open Space. Maintain the area between Shell Beach Road and the 101 Freeway as permanent open space. No further land divisions shall be in this approved area.  Action LU-9.2a: Open Space Character. Require that any development approved on site maintain the open space character. The amount of site area that may be developed with improvements shall not exceed 5,000 square feet or 60% of gross site area whichever is lesser.

Goal LU-11 (St. Andrews Tract/Spindrift): A residential neighborhood where new additions and replacements are compatible with the scale and character of the existing development and where bluff tops, coastal access, trees and bird habitat are protected.  Policy LU-11.1: Bluff-Top Open Space and Access. Protect the bluff-top open space and coastal access areas in this planning area.
 Policy LU-14.1: Downtown Focus for Residents and Visitors. Protect Downtown Pismo Beach as a City focal point with a blend of cultural, commercial, professional, residential and recreational uses catering to both visitors and residents of all ages.  Action LU-14.1e: Local Signage Program. Establish and give emphasis to a distinctive local character in Pismo Beach retailing through a comprehensive local signage program.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-14
Beyond changes envisioned for the Shell Beach and Downtown Core areas, the GP/LCP Update does not anticipate substantial changes to the existing pattern of development in the City. Nevertheless, development and redevelopment facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would result in visual changes to the community. However, the changes effecting visual character and quality in the community that may occur during the lifetime of the GP/LCP Update would be governed by the above goals, policies, and actions as well as the associated updates to the standards contained in the City’s Zoning Code.

Additionally, future development would adhere to the vision and guidelines in the Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan to addresses design issues as well as the residential, commercial, and mixed-use design guidelines for the community of Shell Beach. These plans and community standards have been developed with the goal of retaining Pismo Beach’s visual character and quality, while providing visual enhancements in certain areas of the City. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of applicable policies and regulations.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Impact AES-3 NEW DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO EXISTING REGULATIONS IN THE CITY’S ZONING CODE, AND GP/LCP UPDATE POLICIES, TO PROTECT SKYWARD NIGHTTIME VIEWS AND TO LESSEN OR PREVENT GLARE. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH NEW SOURCES OF LIGHT AND GLARE.

The GP/LCP Update would facilitate new development that could introduce new sources of light and glare in Pismo Beach, resulting in increased ambient nighttime lighting. New sources of light and glare could be introduced by infill development, new development on currently vacant or undeveloped lots, or modification of existing buildings. Specific sources of ambient lighting would include streetlights, parking lot lights, signage on business establishments, exterior building lights, illumination from interior lights, and lighting at outdoor recreational facilities. Reflective building and vehicle surfaces, and the headlights of motor vehicles, could generate additional glare in the City.

Implementation of the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element and Land Use and Community Design goals, policies, and actions listed below would reduce new sources of light or glare that could impact views in the City.

Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal COS-2: A community that conserves the important natural resources of Pismo Beach for the community’s health, safety and enjoyment, including air quality, renewable energy, geology and soils, minerals, water quality and supply, and dark skies.  Policy COS-2.9: Minimization of Lighting Impacts. Eliminate or shield and direct exterior lighting away from biological resources to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife and protect the dark sky.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.1-15
Land Use Element
 Action LU-1.4b: Industrial Standards. Industrial uses shall comply with industrial regulations and standards, including air pollution, noise, waste disposal, access for delivery vehicles and light and glare. These uses should be designed to present a pleasant appearance and shall include appropriate landscaping.
 Policy LU-5.1: Pedestrian Orientation and Safety. Through appropriate zoning and discretionary approvals, strive to create safe, walkable environments that include elements such as good lighting, safe crosswalks, and street trees that allow people of all ages and abilities to exercise and safely access public transportation, community centers, recreation, schools, and goods and services.
 Action LU-5.2d: Pedestrian-Oriented Development. Discourage new “strip” commercial development with large street-fronting parking lots. New commercial developments should address enhancing the pedestrian environment through buildings oriented and accessible from the sidewalk, transparent ground-floor facades, pedestrian lighting and pedestrian- scaled buildings.
 Action LU-5.2f: Pedestrian-Scaled Street Lights. Pedestrian-scaled streetlights shall be used throughout the community in new developments except for safety lighting used for intersection lighting. The City shall also consider a pedestrian scaled streetlight program for each planning area, as done for the Shell Beach planning area.  Action LU-12.4a: Shell Beach Road Streetscape Plan. Continue to implement and update when appropriate the Shell Beach Road Streetscape Plan for improved signage, street trees, sidewalk improvements, pedestrian scale streetlights, public parking, and public art. Require that new developments are consistent with the Shell Beach Streetscape Plan during the plan review process.

Implementation of these goals, policies, and actions would ensure that the updated Zoning Code establishes standards to prevent glare and protect the character of the City from inappropriate levels of lighting. Future development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be required to submit a lighting plan that complies with updated Zoning Code standards. Additionally, future development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would require an independent environmental review that would determine the project-specific light and glare effects and subsequent mitigation measures, if required to comply with standards for lighting and building materials to prevent glare. As a result, the GP/LCP Update would have a less than significant impact related to the introduction of light and glare.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development and redevelopment in the City would intensify urban development within the small coastal community of Pismo Beach. New development would incrementally contribute to regional urbanization in San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, as planned cumulative development occurs throughout San Luis Obispo County, the overall visual environment will change. However, compliance with City and County policies and standards for the protection of visual resources, compatible design for new development, maintaining visual character, and preserving dark skies would ensure that the combination of forecasted development in the City and planned

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.1-16
development in neighboring communities would not result in a substantially different visual environment than currently exists. The cumulative impacts associated with changes in the visual environment would not be significant, and the GP/LCP Update’s contribution to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1

4.2 Air Quality
This section describes current air quality conditions in and around Pismo Beach and analyzes the effects of the proposed General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update on air contaminant emissions and associated impacts, as well as odors.

4.2.1 Setting
a. Climate
The GP/LCP Update planning area is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) which includes all of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The climate of the San Luis Obispo County area and all of the SCCAB is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the location of the semi-permanent high-pressure cell in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. The Mediterranean climate of the region produces moderate average temperatures, although slightly more extreme temperatures can be reached in the winter and summer. The warmest months of the year in Pismo Beach are September and October, with an average maximum temperature of 73 degrees Fahrenheit, while the coldest month of the year is December with an average minimum temperature of 42 degrees Fahrenheit. The climate is semi-arid, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. Table 4.2-1 summarizes local climatic conditions.

Table 4.2-1 Climatic Conditions in Pismo Beach

Average annual rainfall 17.8 inches
Average maximum temperature (annual) 69 °F
Average minimum temperature (annual) 48 °F
Warmest month(s) September & October
Coolest month(s) December
Source: U.S. Climate Data 2021.

The region is subject to seasonal winds. Seasonal winds are strong northerly to northeasterly winds that originate from high-pressure areas centered over the desert of the Great Basin. These winds are usually warm, dry, northerly winds which blow offshore at 15 to 20 miles per hour (mph) but can reach speeds in excess of 60 mph. Seasonal winds are particularly strong in mountain passes and at the mouths of canyons. However, seasonal and local topographic conditions may alter the wind directionality.

Two types of temperature inversions (warmer air on top of cooler air) are created in the area:
subsidence and radiational. The subsidence inversion is a regional effect created by the Pacific high in which air is heated as it is compressed when it flows from the high-pressure area to the low- pressure areas inland. This type of inversion generally forms at about 1,000 to 2,000 feet and can occur throughout the year, but it is most evident during the summer months. Radiational, or surface, inversions are formed by the more rapid cooling of air near the ground at night, especially during winter. This type of inversion is typically lower and is generally accompanied by stable air.

Both types of inversions limit the dispersal of air pollutants within the regional airshed, with the more stable the air (low wind speeds, uniform temperatures), the lower the amount of pollutant dispersion.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-2
b. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The State and federal Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.

Under these Acts, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for certain “criteria” pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations are affected by the rates and distributions of corresponding air pollutant emissions, as well as by the climactic and topographic influences discussed above. The primary determinant of concentrations of non-reactive pollutants (such as carbon monoxide [CO] and fine particulates [PM10]) is proximity to major sources. Ambient CO levels usually closely follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. A discussion of these primary criteria pollutants follows.

Federal and State standards have been established for ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and fine particulates (PM10 and PM2.5). Standards have been set at levels intended to be protective of public health. California’s standards are more restrictive than federal standards for each of these pollutants except lead and the eight-hour average for CO. Table 4.2-2 illustrates the current federal and State AAQS for each of these pollutants.

Table 4.2-2 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard (CAAQS) Federal Standard (NAAQS) Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm –
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm
1-Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
1-Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual – –
24-Hour 0.04 ppm –
1-Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
PM10 Annual 20 µg/m3 –
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3
24-Hour – 35 µg/m3
Lead 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 –
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 µg/m3
ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: CARB 2016
The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) monitors criteria pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, develops strategies to meet the standards. Depending on if the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or as “non-attainment.” As of January 2019 (the last date that SLOAPCD’s attainment status was updated), San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8- hour State standards for ozone and the 24-hour and annual State standards for PM10 (SLOAPCD 2019). (Eastern San Luis Obispo County is also in non-attainment for the 8-hour federal ozone standard, but the western County including Pismo Beach is in attainment for this standard.)

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
More than 250 air quality monitoring stations operated by federal, State, and local agencies comprise the California Ambient Air Monitoring Network, including 11 stations in San Luis Obispo County (CARB 2021a). Nine active State or Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) are located within San Luis Obispo County (SLOAPCD 2020a). A station in Grover Beach, which was formerly the closest to Pismo Beach and monitored wind but not pollutants, was permanently closed in July 2019. The nearest monitoring station to Pismo Beach is the San Luis Obispo-3220 South Higuera Street Station which is located within the city limits of San Luis Obispo. The data collected at this station is generally considered to be representative of the baseline air quality experienced in Pismo Beach.

Table 4.2-3 summarizes the annual air quality data for the local airshed.

Table 4.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2017 2018 2019
Ozone (ppm), Worst 1-Hour 1 0.074 0.062 0.064
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 1 0 0 0 Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average 1 0.066 0.053 0.060
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 1 0 0 0 Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.07 ppm) 1 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average 1 * * *
Number of days of above State or federal standard (>9.0 ppm)1 * * * Particulate Matter 50 µg/m3) 1 5 0 1
Number of days above federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 1 0 0 0 Particulate Matter 35 µg/m3) 1 0 1 0
Notes: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 1 Data from the San Luis Obispo-3220 South Higuera Street Station *No data was available for the NCCAB to determine the value.

Source: CARB 2020, 2021b
The primary pollutants of concern in San Luis Obispo County are ozone (O3) and coarse particulate matter (PM10). Table 4.2-3 provides the annual number of days a pollutant exceeds the standard.

The major local sources for PM10 are agricultural operations, vehicle dust, grading, and dust produced by high winds. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent on reducing the amount of these precursors. In San Luis Obispo County, the major sources of ROG are motor vehicles, organic solvents, the petroleum industry, and pesticides; and the major sources of NOX are motor vehicles, public utility power generation, and fuel combustion by various industrial sources (SLOAPCD 2001). In the Pismo Beach area, stationary sources include the oil wells in Price Canyon, gas stations, and dry-cleaning establishments.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-4
c. Sensitive Receptors
Federal and State AAQS have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under 14; the elderly over 65; persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise; and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases.

Sensitive receptor locations are therefore typically associated with residences, schools, and hospitals. There are no hospitals located within Pismo Beach. The nearest hospital is in the City of Arroyo Grande, located 1.4 miles from Pismo Beach. Additional sensitive receptors in the study area include residences and K-12 schools located throughout the City. Schools in Pismo Beach are identified in Section 4.13, Public Services and Recreation. d. Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) can be released from serpentine and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and CARB identify asbestos as a toxic air contaminant. CARB has established an Air Toxics Control Measure (ACTM) for NOA, which is found in the California Code of Regulations (17 CCR 93105). This measure requires specified control measures for grading or land disturbance that meets certain conditions and allows for the local air pollution control district to exempt specific projects or areas from regulation upon review of a geological evaluation. As originally mapped by the SLOAPCD, the city of Pismo Beach and most of the area surrounding Pismo Beach are not areas of concern with known serpentine rock formation, which are potential sources of NOA (SLOAPCD 2020b). e. Odors
The SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies multiple odor-causing sources including but not limited to wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, and chemical manufacturing (SLOAPCD 2012). The main objectionable odor released from wastewater treatment plants is associated with hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which emits an odor similar to rotten eggs.

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) governs air quality in the United States. In addition to being subject to federal requirements, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). At the federal level, the U.S. EPA administers the FCAA.

Both CAAs are administered by CARB at the State level and at the regional and local levels by air quality management districts. SLOAPCD regulates air quality at the regional level for San Luis Obispo County.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the FCAA. The U.S. EPA is also responsible for establishing the NAAQS, which are a requirement under the 1977 FCAA and subsequent amendments. As shown in Table 4.2-2, NAAQS have been established for ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. The U.S.

EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards established by CARB. b. State Regulations
California Clean Air Act
In California, CARB is responsible for meeting the state requirements of the FCAA, administering the CCAA, and establishing the California CAAQS. The CCAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. These State standards have been established for ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, Pb, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles.

Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act
TACs in California are primarily regulated through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) (Hot Spots Act). As discussed above, HAPs/TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (cancer risk). HAPs/TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state and federal level.

AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. To date, CARB has identified 21 TACs and adopted U.S. EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs (CARB 2021c). In 1998, diesel PM was added to CARB’s list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an Airborne Toxic Control Measure for sources that emit that TAC. If a safe threshold exists at which no toxic effect occurs from a substance, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level to prepare a toxic emissions inventory and a risk assessment. If the emissions are significant, then the project should notify the public of significant risk levels through the environmental document and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-6
c. Regional Regulations
SLOAPCD Clean Air Plan
SLOAPCD regulates air quality in the portion of the SCCAB that is in San Luis Obispo County and is responsible for attainment planning related to criteria air pollutants, and for district rule development and enforcement. Under state law, the SLOAPCD is required to prepare an overall plan for air quality improvement for their jurisdiction within the SCCAB, which is known as the Clean Air Plan (CAP). The most recent CAP was prepared in 2001. The 2001 CAP is the third update to the original 1991 CAP, adopted in 1992. The 2001 CAP describes the air quality setting for the County in detail, including the local climate and meteorology, current and projected air quality, and the regulatory framework for the management of air quality. The 2001 CAP is intended to bring the County into attainment of the State ozone standard through a comprehensive set of control measures designed to reduce ozone precursor emissions from a wide variety of stationary and mobile sources. The 2001 CAP is incorporated by reference and is available for review at the SLOAPCD web site, www.slocleanair.org .

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
Operational emissions for buildout of the GP/LCP Update were modeled based on the potential development capacity in the GP/LCP horizon (year 2040) relative to existing conditions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0 (i.e., the project comprises the anticipated net change between existing and 2040 conditions). Information presented in Table 2-6 in Section 2.0, Project Description, was used to determine the proposed project’s land uses, number of residential units, and non-residential areas, which were entered into CalEEMod. An explanation of the methods and assumptions used to derive these inputs, along with the CalEEMod outputs, are provided in Appendix F. In addition, the emissions analysis assumed that future development under the GP/LCP Update would comply with SLOAPCD rules, such as Rule 504, which restricts residential wood burning, and Rule 433, which sets limits on VOHC content in architectural coatings.

Because project-level details are not currently known and it was assumed that full buildout of the land use plan would occur, the operational emissions as modeled provide a worst-case scenario estimate and are included in this EIR for informational purposes. As indicated above, the significance of air quality impacts related to the project’s operational emissions are determined through qualitative analysis in accordance with SLOAPCD guidance.

Construction emissions were not modeled due to the high dependence of emission estimates on project-level construction details, which are not known at this time for future land use development that may potentially occur under the land use scenario envisioned by the proposed GP/LCP Update.

Individual development projects that are subject to CEQA would be required to provide a project- specific analysis to estimate their potential emissions and incorporate mitigation measures to reduce their emissions as necessary.
b. Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on air quality if it would:

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the regional air quality pollution control district may be relied upon to make determinations of significance. SLOAPCD’s recommended significance criteria are established in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLOAPCD 2012) and applicable criteria are described below.

Consistency with the 2001 CAP
Section 3.2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that a consistency analysis with the 2001 CAP is required for program level environmental review and that a project consistent with the land use and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the 2001 CAP is considered consistent with the CAP. The 2001 CAP guidance for project consistency analysis states that the following questions should be evaluated:
 Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those used in the most recent CAP for the same area?
 Is rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the rate of population growth for the same area?
 Have all applicable land use and transportation control measures from the CAP been included in the plan or project to the maximum extent feasible?
According to the 2001 CAP, if the answer to all of the above questions is yes, then the project is consistent with the CAP. If the answer to any of the above questions is no, the project is inconsistent with the CAP. For the purpose of this analysis the project’s consistency with the 2001 CAP is determined through a consistency analysis with specific land use and transportation measures and strategies included in the CAP, as well as evaluation of the three questions listed above. However, to evaluate question two, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is used instead of vehicle trips because VMT provides a better indicator of mobile source emissions and the number of vehicle trips is built into the VMT, which is equal to the number of vehicle trips multiplied by the average trip length.

Operational Emissions
As stated in Section 3.5 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a program level environmental review, such as for the proposed project, does not require a quantitative air emissions analysis at the project scale; instead, a qualitative analysis should be provided based on criteria such as prevention of urban sprawl and reduced dependence on automobiles and evaluation for consistency with transportation and land use planning strategies outlined in the 2001 CAP. Therefore, the significance of the project’s operational emissions is determined qualitatively.

Although not applicable to the GP/LCP Update, the SLOAPCD has established significance thresholds for evaluating project-level operational emissions. Future development projects subject to CEQA would be required to compare project air pollutant emissions to the most current SLOAPCD thresholds and incorporate mitigation if emissions exceed threshold levels. Table 4.2-4 provides SLOAPCD’s project-level significance thresholds for operational emissions.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-8
Table 4.2-4 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Threshold
Daily (lbs/day) Annual (tons/year)
ROG + NOX (combined)1 25.00 25
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)1 1.25 −
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust 25.00 25
CO 550.00 −
1 SLOAPCD specifies that CalEEMod winter emission outputs should be compared to operational thresholds for these pollutants (2012).

Source: SLOAPCD 2012
Construction Emissions
The SLOAPCD has developed quantitative daily and quarterly significance thresholds for project construction emissions. The daily thresholds apply to projects that would be completed in less than one quarter (90 days). The quarterly construction thresholds apply to projects that would be completed in more than one quarter. Quarterly thresholds are subdivided into Tier 1 and Tier 2, which are tied to different mitigation requirements. Projects exceeding the higher Tier 2 threshold are required to implement more stringent mitigation measures. Table 4.2-5 provides SLOAPCD’s project-level significance thresholds for construction emissions.

Table 4.2-5 SLOAPCD Construction Emissions Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Threshold
Daily (lbs) Quarterly Tier 1 (tons) Quarterly Tier 2 (tons) ROG + NOX (combined)1 137 2.50 6.30
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)1 7 0.13 0.32
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust − 2.50 −
1 SLOAPCD specifies that CalEEMod winter emission outputs should be compared to operational thresholds for these pollutants (2012).

Source: SLOAPCD 2012
As with the SLOAPCD’s operational thresholds, these thresholds are intended for project-level review rather than program-level environmental review as construction emissions are highly dependent on project-specific details. Thus, the significance of the construction emissions associated with buildout of the GP/LCP Update is evaluated qualitatively. However, future development projects subject to CEQA would be required to evaluate the significance of project air pollutant emissions using the current SLOAPCD thresholds and incorporate mitigation if emissions exceed threshold levels in accordance with SLOAPCD guidance.

Toxic Air Contaminants
As stated in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project that has the potential to emit toxic or hazardous air pollutants or is in close proximity to sensitive receptors, may have a significant health impact related to toxic air contaminants (TACs). A qualitative analysis is provided to determine whether the GP/LCP Update would result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (DPM) or other toxics by siting receptors along major roadways or in proximity to industrial facilities. Individual projects developed under the GP/LCP would be required to determine if the individual project would result in potential risks to nearby sensitive receptors.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
Odor
Table 3-3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides potential screening distances for nuisance sources. Projects locating sensitive receptors, or other uses where people congregate, within the screening distance of nuisance sources require further evaluation to determine whether the project would be exposed to significant odor impact. For a project that will be located near an existing odor source, the project would have a significant odor impact if it sites receptors as close or closer to the source than a location that has experienced: 1) more than one confirmed complaint per year averaged over a three year period, or 2) three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three year period. A qualitative discussion is provided to determine whether the GP/LCP Update would facilitate new development that would result in odor-related conflicts.

Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
IMPACT AQ-1 THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN PROJECTED POPULATION THAT WOULD EXCEED THE 2001 CLEAN AIR PLAN PROJECTIONS FOR PISMO BEACH, WHICH WOULD PRODUCE LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS BEYOND THOSE PLANNED FOR THE REGION. THIS

INCONSISTENCY WITH THE SLOAPCD CLEAR AIR PLAN WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT.

As described in Section 4.2.3, SLOAPCD determines consistency with the 2001 CAP based on whether the project would exceed the population projections used in the CAP for the same area, whether the vehicle trips generated by the project would exceed the rate of population growth for the same area, and whether all applicable land use management strategies and transportation control measures from the 2001 CAP have been included in the project to the maximum extent feasible. The consistency of the GP/LCP Update with each of these criteria is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Population Growth Consistency
Buildout of the General Plan would add an estimated 1,979 residents to Pismo Beach by 2040 (see Table 2-6 in Section 2, Project Description). When added to the existing population within the City of approximately 8,237 (California Department of Finance 2020), projected buildout of the City would increase the City’s total population to an estimated 10,216 residents, or an increase of 24.0 percent.

The 2001 CAP uses growth forecasts provided by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) in the Regional Growth Forecast to project population-related emissions for the SCCAB (SLOAPCD 2001; SLOCOG 2017). In turn, SLOCOG population forecasts are based on the land use assumptions presented in the existing general plans of local governments within the SCCAB. When a general plan is updated, land uses are also updated to accommodate future growth projected based on recent population growth trends. Consequently, an updated general plan prepared for a local jurisdiction experiencing a higher rate of population growth than assumed in the previous general plan would have projected growth exceeding previous general plan and SLOCOG projections.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-10
Implementation of the GP/LCP Update would cause the population of Pismo Beach to exceed the City and SLOCOG projected 2040 population of 9,901 residents. However, future SLOCOG growth projections would incorporate the GP/LCP Update land use assumptions and would inform future air quality management in the SCCAB.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Increase
The proposed GP/LCP Update Circulation Element (Appendix B) provides estimates of annual VMT within the City’s existing land uses and existing transportation network, current General Plan Buildout, and proposed General Plan Buildout. Future VMT estimates were developed as part of the Pismo Beach Circulation Element Update Final Technical Report (refer to Table 10 in Appendix J).

Annual net VMT under existing conditions reflects the current roadway network and traffic volumes collected in 2010, calibrated for 2019 existing conditions. Annual net VMT under buildout plus project conditions reflects anticipated buildout under the GP/LCP Update for 2040.

Total existing annual net VMT in the County is estimated at 11,226,484. Total annual net VMT in the County under the proposed GP/LCP Buildout is estimated to be 13,476,666, Based on these projections, VMT would increase by approximately 20 percent by 2040 with implementation of the GP/LCP Update. Regional Residential VMT per Capita and Work VMT per employee rates are also projected to grow due to the proposed Land Use and Community Design Element. The increase in miles traveled would not exceed the rate of population growth for the same area (23 percent) for the same time period, therefore the project would be consistent with projections on which the 2001 CAP is based.

Implementation of Land Use and Transportation Control Measures Five of the transportation control measures and four of the land use planning strategies in the 2001 CAP are applicable to the proposed GP/LCP Update. The GP/LCP Update’s consistency with the 2001 CAP’s applicable land use and transportation control measures is evaluated in Table 4.2-6.

Table 4.2-6 GP/LCP Update Consistency with Applicable 2001 CAP Land Use and Transportation Control Measures
2001 CAP Control Measure Project Consistency
Land Use Planning Strategies
L-1 Planning Compact
Communities. Maintaining compact
city and village areas reduces
reliance on the automobile by
enhancing the viability of public
transit and maximizing the
potential for walking and bicycling
to work, shopping, and other
destinations.

Consistent
The GP/LCP Update would focus new development primarily in Pismo Beach’s city limits, as illustrated in the land use plan and as supported by the following policies included in the GP/LCP Update Land Use Element:
 Policy LU-6.2: Maintenance of Infrastructure. Continue to regulate new and existing development and infrastructure so as not to overburden the City’s infrastructure.
 Policy LU-7.1: Growth Areas. Prioritize growth in areas that complement adjacent neighborhoods, consider market and policy demand for housing and commercial needs, and revitalize economically obsolete uses.  Policy LU-7.2: Adaptive Reuse. Support and incentivize adaptive reuse of buildings and sites to utilize existing infrastructure while enhancing the character of the community.

In addition, the GP/LCP Update Circulation Element includes policies and actions to reduce vehicle use and promote use of transit and active transportation, including the following:

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
2001 CAP Control Measure Project Consistency
 Policy CE-2.1: Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycle riding for transportation, recreation, commuting, and improvement of public and environmental health. Make downtown more functional and enjoyable for bicyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths shall receive at least the same emphasis and attention in future planning as facilities designed for the automobile.
 Policy CE-2.4: Maintain and Improve Existing Facilities. Maintain and improve existing multimodal circulation and transportation systems and facilities, to maximize alternatives to new street and highway construction.

Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed parts of the City and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
 Action CE-2.1a: Integration of Land Use Planning. Implement land use policies designed to create a pattern of activity that makes it easy to shop, recreate, commute, and conduct personal business without driving.  Action CE-2.1c: Bikeways Encouraged. Bikeways shall be encouraged within the City and adjoining jurisdictions as a complement to Pismo Beach's visitor and recreation emphasis, to reduce automobile trips and for the convenience of visitors and residents. The City's bikeway plan will be coordinated with the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and Regional Transportation Agency, and the County of San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Plan.  Action CE-2.1e: Pedestrian Circulation. Sidewalks shall be required for all new developments in residential (other than individual single family residential) and commercial areas. Generally, the sidewalk shall be located so that a landscape strip or trees are located between the sidewalk and the vehicular travelled way. Techniques shall be encouraged to create a pleasant walking experience including concern for views, paving materials, landscape, street furniture, and pedestrian scaled lighting. The City encourages the use of flashing beacons or lighted crosswalk systems, especially in highly trafficked areas. All new sidewalk areas shall be designed to accommodate the handicapped, compliant with the ADA. Also, the City shall install (or cause to be installed) sidewalks or footpaths along all collector or arterial streets that connect with commercial centers, public gathering areas and schools.  Action CE-2.1g: Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations.

Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers’ ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings across US 101.

L-2 Providing for Mixed Land Use.

Communities should allow a
mixture of land uses that enables
people to walk or bicycle to work or
to purchase necessary household
items or service, at locations
convenient to their neighborhood.

Consistent
The GP/LCP Update would support mixed-use development primarily through the Mixed-Use designation, as well as the Community, District, Neighborhood, and Visitor-Serving Commercial designations. In addition, the GP/LCP Update supports mixed-use development through the following Land Use Element policies:
 Action LU-1.3d: Transitional Areas. Mixed-Use designations should be designed to promote transitional areas between core commercial areas and residential zoning, and to foster new commercial and mixed-use development in proximity to transit access.
 Action LU-5.2a: Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. Create standards for each commercial zone to allow for mixed-use-residential areas within proximity and walking distance of commercial, office, recreation, and public uses.

Furthermore, identify opportunities to provide a mix of commercial- and recreation uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods to enable and encourage walking and biking between uses.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-12
2001 CAP Control Measure Project Consistency
 Action LU-5.3d: Transit-Oriented Development. Support the development of multifamily residential and mixed-use projects around the City’s transit station, by allowing a reduction in the parking requirements or other development standards, and require new development to incorporate or improve pedestrian, bicycle, and where applicable, transit facilities.

L-3 Balancing Jobs and Housing.

Within cities and unincorporated
communities, the gap between the
availability of jobs and housing
should be narrowed and should not
be allowed to expand.

Consistent
The GP/LCP Update would allow for future development of new residential and employment spaces. Pismo Beach is a jobs-rich environment and a regional tourism destination, and as a result, increasing residential density is expected to reduce the gap between the availability of jobs and housing. In addition, the project would support balancing jobs and housing through the following Land Use Element policy and Community and Open Space Element action:
 Action COS-2.1a. Community Trip Reduction. In order to reduce pollution, the City shall emphasize various procedures to reduce the number of vehicle trips and the number of vehicle miles traveled in the community. Techniques shall include, but not be limited to, transportation management measures such as vanpools, carpools, and subsidized transit passes; jobs/housing balance; bikeways and facilities; pedestrian facilities; and related infrastructure and transit improvements.

L-4 Circulation Management. The
primary goal of the recommended
Circulation Management Policies
and Programs is to encourage the
design and construction of the
county’s transportation system in a
manner that supports alternative
travel modes and decreases
reliance on single occupant motor
vehicles. Policies include:

Promoting accessibility in the
transportation system
Promoting walking and bicycling
Parking management
Transportation demand
management
Consistent
The GP/LCP Update includes policies to reduce vehicle use and promote use of transit and active transportation, including those listed under L-1 (above), T-3 (below), as well as the following Circulation Element policies to support parking management:
 Policy CE-3.6: Downtown Traffic and Parking. Discourage traffic in the Downtown area, improve Downtown parking and drop-off opportunities, and provide remote parking, the following strategies should be utilized.  Action CE-3.6a: Bicycles and Trolley System. The City shall work with the lodging industry to 1) provide free (or very low rent) bicycles for guests, and 2) to develop and maintain a trolley system for summer months, weekends, and special events.
 Action CE-3.6b: Downtown Parking District. Consider utilization of existing parking district mechanisms to finance Downtown or remote parking and related improvements suggested in the Downtown Strategic Plan (approved November 2014);
 Action CE-3.6c: Downtown Strategic Plan. Utilize the Downtown Strategic Plan to aid in identifying parking opportunities and concepts;  Action CE-3.6d: Parking Analysis. Examine vacant or underutilized lots for off- street parking or remote parking facilities;
 Action CE-3.6e: Establish Rideshare Zones. Consider converting public parking spaces to designated rideshare pick-up / drop-off zones.  Action CE-3.6f: Implement Shuttle Program. Consider implementing a shuttle program between satellite parking areas and Downtown as a Travel Demand Management strategy, to relieve traffic congestion and to reduce parking demand Downtown. Potential areas for satellite parking include sites east of the US 101 and to the north and south of Downtown;
 Action CE-3.6g: Implement Dockless Bike Program. Consider implementing and installing a Dockless Bike program throughout the City as a Travel Demand Management strategy, to relieve traffic congestion and to reduce parking demand Downtown;
 Action CE-3.6h: Provide Wayfinding and Parking Signage. Install and maintain wayfinding and parking signs throughout the City, consider dynamic wayfinding and parking signs;
 Action CE-3.6i: Establish Parking Location Systems. Add both static and

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
2001 CAP Control Measure Project Consistency
dynamic parking wayfinding systems including a dynamic system at the pier parking lot and a parking inventory control system;
 Action CE-3.6j: Update Parking Ratios and In-Lieu Fee Program. Update the City’s Downtown parking ratios and in-lieu fee program to support new business growth;
 Action CE-3.6k: Public/Private Partnerships. Consider Public/Private Partnership opportunities to expand parking inventory;
 Action CE-3.6l: Develop Parking Structure. Rezone and develop parking structures in the Downtown area.
 Action CE-3.6m: Promote E-Bikes at Hotels. Encourage / incentivize hotels to provide e-bikes to hotel guests.
 Action CE-3.6n: Promote ‘Park-Once’ Strategy. Promote the ‘park-once’ concept of parking once and conveniently walking to downtown services, attractions, and the coast.
 Policy CE-7.6 Financing Program: Downtown Parking in Lieu Fee Program.

The City shall update and maintain a Parking In-lieu Fee Program that will fully fund expansion of public parking facilities such as parking garages to accommodate anticipated parking requirement that new development cannot satisfy on-site. The financing program will include an update to the existing Capital Improvements Plan consistent with AB 1600.

Transportation Control Measures
T-2A Local Transit System
Improvements. The focus of this
measure is on improving local
transit service and infrastructure to
increase ridership by enhancing the
convenience and overall viability of
the system.

Consistent
The GP/LCP Update would support improvements to local transit service and infrastructure through the following Circulation Element actions:
 Action CE-4.1b: Downtown Transit Priority Area. Strive to establish a downtown as a Transit Priority Area by establishing transit service of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
 Action CE-4.1ba: Comprehensive Transit Services. The City shall support the availability of transit service as a means to reduce automobile congestion, to provide transportation for those who have no other form of transportation, as a means to reduce air pollution, and as a service to visitors. Such support should include, but not be limited to, SCT, Greyhound bus service, vanpools, shuttle bus systems, dial-a-ride services, and cab services.  Action CE-4.1c: Vanpools and Ride Sharing. The City shall encourage and support vanpools and ride sharing. A special program should be developed in cooperation with the visitor industry to encourage vanpools and ride sharing for hotel and related workers. Appropriate locations shall be designated for ride share parking lots.

T-2B Regional Public Transit
Improvements. San Luis Obispo
Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA)
operates the regional fixed route
system, Central Coast Area Transit
(CCAT). The focus of this measure is
to improve regional transit service
and infrastructure with the goal of
increasing ridership rates in excess
of countywide population growth
rates.

Consistent
The GP/LCP Update would support improvements to regional transit service and infrastructure through implementation of the following Circulation Element policies and actions:
 Policy CE-4.3: Work with Multiple Agencies and Jurisdictions. Continue to cooperate with other agencies and jurisdictions to promote local and regional public transit.
 Action CE-4.3f: Funding for Transit Services. Work with SLORTA and SLOCOG to continue to pursue federal and State funds to subsidize capital and operating costs associated with the City’s transit operation. If federal funds are reduced and capital needs are not being met, transit may be added to the TIF through a Nexus Study after a public hearing process is approved by the City Council.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-14
2001 CAP Control Measure Project Consistency
 Action CE-4.3h: Transit Usability. Work with SLORTA to situate transit stops at locations that are convenient for transit users and promote increased transit ridership through the provision of shelters, benches, bike racks on buses, ADA compliance, and other amenities.

T-3 Bicycling and Bikeway
Enhancements. To effectively
encourage the modal shift to
bicycles, a comprehensive program
to promote bicycle use was
adopted in the 1991 Clean Air Plan.

Consistent
The GP/LCP Update would support increased bicycle use through policies listed under the L-1 above, including the following Circulation Element policies and actions:
 Action CE-2.1c: Bikeways Encouraged. Bikeways shall be encouraged within the City and adjoining jurisdictions as a complement to Pismo Beach's visitor and recreation emphasis, to reduce automobile trips and for the convenience of visitors and residents. The City's bikeway plan will be coordinated with the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and Regional Transportation Agency, and the County of San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Plan.
 Policy CE-3.4: Bicycle Parking Facilities. The City should install bicycle parking facilities in public areas such as the beach, parks, park and ride lots, and at other public facilities to encourage bicycle use. Bicycle parking facilities should be designed to accommodate various types of bicycles. Bicycle parking facilities should be considered as a required condition of approval for new development applications for proposed commercial hotel and major residential projects near restrooms, drinking water, and public telephones, and air for bicycle tires should be provided near bicycle lanes. Showers and locker rooms should be provided where feasible. Funding may be provided for these facilities by incorporation into the TIF and be consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
 Policy CE-2.2d: Bicycle Use by City Employees. Establish a program to encourage bicycle use among City employees.

T-4 Park and Ride Lots. To reduce
vehicle miles traveled, this measure
supports the development of new
park and ride lots, including
through the use of existing parking
lots and developing agreements for
park and ride lots when new
commercial development occurs.

Consistent
Pismo Beach has one formal park and ride lot located at the Premium Outlets.

The Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan includes proposed multimodal facilities to complete the multimodal transportation network throughout the City, including bicycle-parking facilities for City park and ride lots.

The GP/LCP Update Circulation Element would support development of park and ride lots through the following policies:
 Policy CE-3.4: Bicycle Parking Facilities. The City should install bicycle parking facilities in public areas such as the beach, parks, park and ride lots, and at other public facilities to encourage bicycle use. Bicycle parking facilities should be designed to accommodate various types of bicycles. Bicycle parking facilities should be considered as a required condition of approval for new development applications for proposed commercial hotel and major residential projects near restrooms, drinking water, and public telephones, and air for bicycle tires should be provided near bicycle lanes. Showers and locker rooms should be provided where feasible. Funding may be provided for these facilities by incorporation into the TIF and be consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
 Action CE-4.1c: Vanpools and Ride Sharing. The City shall encourage and support vanpools and ride sharing. A special program should be developed in cooperation with the visitor industry to encourage vanpools and ride sharing for hotel and related workers. Appropriate locations shall be designated for ride share parking lots.
 Action CE-4.3b: Multimodal Transfer Centers. The City will continue to work with Caltrans, SCT, RTA, SLOCOG, and the commuting public to develop multimodal transfer areas or centers that will incorporate automobile parking

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
2001 CAP Control Measure Project Consistency
areas, bike parking, bus, transit, pedestrian bike paths, and park and ride pick-up or drop-off points for carpooling.

In addition, the 2019 RTP/SCS identifies active transportation projects, non- highway system projects, highway system projects, and a park and ride project in Pismo Beach. The 2019 RTP/SCS includes Policy 6.3 to “reduce GHG emissions from vehicles and improve air quality in the region.”
T-6 Traffic Flow Improvements.

This control measure focuses on
traffic flow improvements and
“traffic-calming” to improve the
flow of all transportation modes.

Traffic-calming refers to a full range
of methods designed to improve
the flow of nonmotorized
transportation by slowing down the
speed of motorized traffic. Traffic-
calming is generally used in
residential areas on non-arterial
local streets and roads.

Consistent
The GP/LCP Update would support improvements to traffic flow through the following Circulation Element policies:
 Policy CE-6.1: Traffic Calming. Traffic calming techniques may be employed to mitigate the traffic effects of new development on minor and major collector streets. The City shall adopt and maintain Traffic Calming Handbook adopted 10/19/21 for application and design of traffic calming measures.

As shown in Table 4.2-6, the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with applicable land use and transportation control measures contained in the 2001 CAP. In addition, the GP/LCP Update includes goals and policies intended to promote compact development and reduce VMT, which would reduce criteria pollutant emissions associated with new development in the planning area.

Implementation of the policies and actions in the GP/LCP Update Land Use and Circulation Elements listed below would minimize adverse effects associated with long term criteria pollutant emissions.

The GP/LCP Update Land Use policies and actions include:
 Action LU-1.3d: Transitional Areas. Mixed-Use designations should be designed to promote transitional areas between core commercial areas and residential zoning, and to foster new commercial and mixed-use development in proximity to transit access.  Action LU-5.2a: Mixed-Use Neighborhood. Create standards for each commercial zone to allow for mixed-use-residential areas within proximity and walking distance of commercial, office, recreation, and public uses. Furthermore, identify opportunities to provide a mix of commercial- and recreation uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods to enable and encourage walking and biking between uses.
 Action LU-5.3d: Transit-Oriented Development. Support the development of multifamily residential and mixed-use projects around the City’s transit station, by allowing a reduction in the parking requirements or other development standards, and require new development to incorporate or improve pedestrian, bicycle, and where applicable, transit facilities  Policy LU-6.2: Maintenance of Infrastructure. Continue to regulate new and existing development and infrastructure so as not to overburden the City’s infrastructure.  Policy LU-7.2: Adaptive Reuse. Support and incentivize adaptive reuse of buildings and sites to utilize existing infrastructure while enhancing the character of the community.  Policy LU-7.3: Proactive Growth Planning. Proactively maintain and plan for areas in the City as well as the sphere of influence.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-16
 Action LU-7.3b: Extended Planning Area/Sphere of Influence. Continue to identify areas outside the SOI to be included in the SOI in the future and identify these areas as “Extended Planning Areas.”
i. The City shall comprehensively evaluate the boundaries and potential land uses of the SOI at least every 10 years, but more often if appropriate. Such evaluations shall address, among other factors, whether the supply of land is adequate to accommodate projected housing needs allocated by the San Luis Obispo Council of Government (SLOCOG).
ii. At each periodic comprehensive evaluation, the City Council shall determine whether the public interest would be served by designating additional lands to be provided municipal services and developed with urban uses.
 Action LU-7.3e: Roadway Distances. Areas proposed for future growth should address roadway distances that would connect the new areas of development together with the existing City and would promote maximum connectivity between different land uses through walkways, bike paths, transit, or other means.
 Action LU-7.3f: Adjacent Development. Any proposals within the SOI shall be phased such that properties adjacent to the existing City Limits are developed as part of the first phase of development.
 Action LU-7.3g: Residential Growth Rate. The City's residential growth rate shall be managed to assure that the amount of new development annually is commensurate with the availability of public services and infrastructure and will not result in a deterioration of the quality of service to existing or new residents.
 Action LU-7.3h: Required Plans. The City shall not allow development of any newly annexed private land until the City has adopted a specific or development plan for land uses, open space protection, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area.

The GP/LCP Circulation Element policies and actions include:
 Policy CE-2.1: Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycle riding for transportation, recreation, commuting, and improvement of public and environmental health.

Make downtown more functional and enjoyable for bicyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths shall receive at least the same emphasis and attention in future planning as facilities designed for the automobile.
 Policy CE-2.4: Maintain and Improve Existing Facilities. Maintain and improve existing multimodal circulation and transportation systems and facilities, to maximize alternatives to new street and highway construction. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed parts of the City and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
 Action CE-2.1a: Integration of Land Use Planning. Implement land use policies designed to create a pattern of activity that makes it easy to shop, recreate, commute, and conduct personal business without driving.
 Action CE-2.1c: Bikeways Encouraged. Bikeways shall be encouraged within the City and adjoining jurisdictions as a complement to Pismo Beach's visitor and recreation emphasis, to reduce automobile trips and for the convenience of visitors and residents. The City's bikeway

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
plan will be coordinated with the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and Regional Transportation Agency, and the County of San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Plan.  Policy CE-3.4: Bicycle Parking Facilities. The City should install bicycle parking facilities in public areas such as the beach, parks, park and ride lots, and at other public facilities to encourage bicycle use. Bicycle parking facilities should be designed to accommodate various types of bicycles. Bicycle parking facilities should be considered as a required condition of approval for new development applications for proposed commercial hotel and major residential projects near restrooms, drinking water, and public telephones, and air for bicycle tires should be provided near bicycle lanes. Showers and locker rooms should be provided where feasible.

Funding may be provided for these facilities by incorporation into the TIF and be consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
 Action CE-2.2d: Bicycle Use by City Employees. Establish a program to encourage bicycle use among City employees.
 Action CE-2.1e: Pedestrian Circulation. Sidewalks shall be required for all new developments in residential (other than individual single family residential) and commercial areas. Generally, the sidewalk shall be located so that a landscape strip or trees are located between the sidewalk and the vehicular travelled way. Techniques shall be encouraged to create a pleasant walking experience including concern for views, paving materials, landscape, street furniture, and pedestrian scaled lighting. The City encourages the use of flashing beacons or lighted crosswalk systems, especially in highly trafficked areas. All new sidewalk areas shall be designed to accommodate the handicapped, compliant with the ADA. Also, the City shall install (or cause to be installed) sidewalks or footpaths along all collector or arterial streets that connect with commercial centers, public gathering areas and schools.  Policy CE-2.1g: Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers’ ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings across US 101.  Policy CE-4.2h: Transit Usability. Work with SLORTA to situate transit stops at locations that are convenient for transit users and promote increased transit ridership through the provision of shelters, benches, bike racks on buses, ADA compliance, and other amenities.  Policy CE-7.6: Financing Program: Downtown Parking in Lieu Fee Program. The City shall update and maintain a Parking In-lieu Fee Program that will fully fund expansion of public parking facilities such as parking garages to accommodate anticipated parking requirement that new development cannot satisfy on-site. The financing program will include an update to the existing Capital Improvements Plan consistent with AB 1600. 2001 Clean Air Plan Consistency Conclusion
As discussed above, the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with the 2001 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 conflict with SLOAPCD’s assumptions for population growth. As a result, the GP/LCP Update could result in long-term operational criterial pollutant emissions that may obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, which would be a significant impact.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-18
Mitigation Measures
No feasible mitigation strategies are available to reduce this impact, beyond the proposed GP/LCP Update policy framework.

Significance After Mitigation
Additional policy-oriented mitigation is not available and/or feasible that would reduce the projected population increase such that it would not exceed population growth in the region.

Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would be inconsistent with the 2001 CAP, and the impact to regional air quality associated with long-term operational emissions in Pismo Beach would remain significant and unavoidable
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
IMPACT AQ-2 BUILDOUT OF THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS. CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS FROM FUTURE PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING AREA WOULD BE

QUANTIFIED ONCE PROJECT DETAILS ARE KNOWN AND EVALUATED FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SLOAPCD GUIDANCE. SLOAPCD PROVIDES STANDARD EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS IMPACTS WHICH ARE INCLUDED AS REQUIRED MITIGATION. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

Buildout of the GP/LCP Update would result in short-term emissions associated with construction activities, such as construction worker travel to and from project sites, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment, and application of architectural coatings and other products. These construction activities would temporarily create emissions of dust, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The magnitude of ROG and NOX emissions would depend primarily on the quantity and type of equipment used and the hours of usage. The extent of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials off-site is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts.

As discussed in Impact AQ-1, the GP/LCP Update Land Use and Circulation Elements would limit criteria pollutant emissions by limiting VMT growth. In addition, the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element provides a policy framework that would reduce wasteful and inefficient energy consumption through implementation of the following policies and actions:
 Policy COS-2.2: Renewable Energy. Support and incentivize renewable energy and non- renewable energy consumption.
 Action COS-2.2a: Solar Incentives. The City shall promote and inform development applicants and existing home owners and businesses of the following solar incentives and  other incentives as may be appropriate.
− California Solar Initiative Rebate Program
− California Alternative Rates for Energy Program
− California Energy Commission – New Solar Homes Partnership

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
− GRID Alternatives - Single-Family Affordable Solar Housing Program − Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo Energy Services  Action COS-2.2b: Energy Audits for Community Buildings. Complete energy audits and benchmarking of all City-owned or -operated facilities, leveraging existing programs, such as Pacific Gas & Electric's Automated Benchmarking Service or the U.S. EPA’s ENERGY STAR Challenge program.
 Action COS-2.2c: Energy Efficient Upgrades. Establish a prioritized list of energy efficiency upgrade projects and implement them as funding becomes available.

Future development projects in Pismo Beach would be evaluated for air quality impacts once project-level details are known and would be required to incorporate additional mitigation if construction emissions from individual development projects would exceed applicable project-level thresholds established by SLOAPCD. SLOAPCD provides standard mitigation measures for construction in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Because individual projects would be required to evaluate air quality impacts resulting from construction emissions and mitigate emissions as required by SLOAPCD guidance, construction air quality impacts associated with implementing the GP/LCP Update would be potentially significant, requiring implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Standard Mitigation for Construction Equipment
Proponents of individual land use projects, or other projects requiring grading or building permits, shall require construction contractors to incorporate the following standard mitigation measures, as applicable, to reduce ROG, NOX, and DPM emissions from construction equipment. Mitigation measures shall be listed on project construction plans and the project proponent shall perform periodic site inspections during construction to ensure that mitigation measures are being implemented.
 Maintain all construction equipment in proper condition according to manufacturer’s specifications
 Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road)  Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State off-road Regulation  Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation  Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance  All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit
 When feasible for project-specific occasions, diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-20
 When feasible for project specific occasions, staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors
 Electrify equipment when feasible
 Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible  Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce short-term criteria pollutant emissions generated by construction activities associated with future buildout of the proposed GP/LCP Update. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, short-term construction impacts associated with the GP/LCP Update would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Threshold 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
IMPACT AQ-3 THE GP/LCP UPDATE CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT INCLUDES POLICIES

INTENDED TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH TACS THROUGH LOCAL ACTIONS AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION. THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD NOT GENERATE LEVELS OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD

EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS, OR RESULT IN NEW

DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Toxic Air Contaminants
High levels of TACs, such as diesel particulate matter (DPM), formaldehyde, benzene, acetaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), can result in health risks for sensitive populations.

CARB recommends local jurisdictions adopt land use policies to separate sensitive land uses a minimum of 500 to 1,000 feet from common TAC sources, depending on the source. SLOAPCD permitting requirements would apply to new stationary sources of TACs in Pismo Beach. CARB also provides advisory recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses for common mobile and stationary sources of air toxics are presented in Table 4.2-7 and published in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB 2005).

Table 4.2-7 Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses in California Source Category Advisory Recommended Setback Distance
Freeways and High-traffic Roads 500 feet from a freeway or urban road with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day
Distribution Centers that accommodate
than 100 trucks per day, more than 40
trucks with operating transport
refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or
where TRU unit operations exceed 300
hours per week
1,000 feet. Avoid location of new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points
Rail Yards 1,000 feet. Within 1 mile, consider siting limitation and mitigation approaches
Ports Immediately downwind. Consult local air district
Refineries 1,000 feet

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
Source Category Advisory Recommended Setback Distance
Chrome Platers 1,000 feet
Dry Cleaners Using Perchloroethylene 300 feet. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities 300 feet for a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater)
50 feet for typical gas dispensing facilities
Source: CARB 2005
Development projected by the GP/LCP Update includes a net increase of approximately 668,928 square feet of commercial development, which could result in additional sources of TACs including new auto service/sales uses, dry cleaners, or gas stations. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update could increase the number of stationary or permitted sources that emit TACs in Pismo Beach. Additionally, new residential units may be constructed near existing stationary or permitted sources of TAC in Pismo Beach, which may expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air.

The GP/LCP Update includes policies intended to maintain and improve local air quality through local actions and interagency coordination. Implementation of the policies in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element listed below would minimize adverse effects associated with criteria pollutants and TACs. These include:
 Policy COS-2.1: Improve Air Quality. The City shall support health and enjoyment for those who live or work in the City and for visitors.
 Action COS-2.1c: Electric Vehicles. Establish electric vehicle parking spaces and charging requirements to lower pollution and reduce the City’s reliance on gasoline.  Action COS-2.1d: City Fleet Replacement. Develop and adopt a low- and zero- emissions replacement/purchasing policy for official City vehicles and equipment. This would not apply to vehicles with special performance requirements.
 Action COS-2.1g: Manage Toxic Air Contaminants. Continue to address and enforce federal and state regulation that aim to maintain attainment. Through implementation and enforcement of CEQA mitigation, the City shall manage toxic air contaminants to protect public health and meet applicable TAC state-mandated risk compliance thresholds.

Compliance with existing applicable regulations, SLOAPCD permitting requirements, and GP/LCP Update policies would minimize risks associated with criteria pollutant and TAC emissions. Oversight by the appropriate State and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to TAC emissions. Therefore, health risk impacts from TAC emissions would be less than significant.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The GP/LCP Update is anticipated to increase regional VMT (refer to Section 4.13, Transportation).

Areas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections, have the potential to create high concentrations of CO (“CO hotspots”) and could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The CARB considers freeways and urban roadways with more than 100,000 vehicles per day and rural roadways with more than 50,000 vehicles per day to pose a potential health risk to sensitive receptors within 500 feet due to DPM emissions (CARB 2005). In

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-22
addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established a volume of 44,000 vehicles per hour as the level above which traffic volumes may contribute to a violation of CO standards (BAAQMD 2017).According to the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the GP/LCP Update (GHD 2021), there are several intersections that operate at level of service (LOS) D or lower in Pismo Beach. However, existing traffic volumes along all of the studied roadway segments in Pismo Beach under existing, buildout, or buildout with project conditions do not exceed 50,000 vehicles per day or 44,000 vehicles per hour at any location (Appendix J). Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not result in volumes of traffic that would create, or substantially contribute to, hazardous levels of TACs or the exceedance of State and federal AAQS for CO.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOA has been identified by the State Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are common in San Luis Obispo County and may contain NOA. According to the SLOAPCD NOA Map for San Luis Obispo County, Pismo Beach is not within an area of concern for serpentine rock formation, which are potential sources of NOA (SLOAPCD 2018a). Future development under the GP/LCP Update would result in excavation and grading. However, as Pismo Beach is not located within a serpentine rock formation, future development in Pismo Beach would not be expected to encounter NOA. Therefore, impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos within the project area would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No additional policy-oriented mitigation would be required to address this impact. As individual development projects are proposed, focused, project-level environmental review may be required, which could result in the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures.

Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
IMPACT AQ-4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD NOT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS THAT WOULD IMPACT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN PISMO BEACH

WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH SLOAPCD REGULATIONS PROHIBITING NUISANCE EMISSIONS (INCLUDING ODORS). THIS WOULD BE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

Potential odor sources identified in SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook include manufacturing plants, coffee roasters, composting facilities, landfills, transfer stations, and wastewater treatment plants. Planned development under the proposed GP/LCP Update includes commercial, residential, public space, and mixed-use land uses. These land uses typically do not produce objectionable odors. The GP/LCP Update does not envision new industrial uses.

The proposed GP/LCP Land Use Element includes Action 2.1 d and Goal LU-1, which demonstrate the objective to address potential odor conflicts in the proposed GP/LCP Update for certain commercial uses such as agriculture livestock and wastewater treatment plant.

Goal LU-1: A community with a variety of well-regulated land uses that support the diverse needs of both residents and visitors.
 Action-LU-2.1h: Compatible Uses: Enforce buffers and screening techniques to reduce the impact of noise, air pollution, traffic, or other nuisances from industrial or certain commercial uses.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.2-23
Because the proposed GP/LCP Update includes goals, policies, and actions intended to minimize odor conflicts between future land uses in Pismo Beach, odors resulting from buildout of the GP/LCP would be primarily limited to those associated with construction activities and vehicle and engine exhaust and idling. During construction activities, only short-term, temporary odors from vehicle exhaust and construction equipment engines would occur. SLOAPCD Rule 402 prohibits discharge of air contaminants or other materials, including odors, that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or to a business or property. Rule 402 exempts odors from agricultural operations; however, Pismo Beach is approximately two miles northwest of the nearest agricultural operations, and as a result would not be expected to result in odor conflicts that would impact a substantial number of people.

Implementation of the land use scenario envisioned by the GP/LCP, including compliance with General Plan Action LU-2.1 d, would not result in a substantial number of sensitive receptors being located near sources of odors, and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant, and no additional policy-oriented mitigation would be required. As individual development projects are proposed, focused, project-level environmental review may be required, which could result in the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures to reduce potential odor conflicts.

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
Pismo Beach is located in San Luis Obispo County, which is a part of the SCCAB, along with Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. All of the City’s neighboring jurisdictions are also located in San Luis Obispo County and within the SCCAB. Air quality in the SCCAB is regulated by SLOAPCD, which has prepared an air quality plan to improve conditions and meet federal and state air quality standards.

San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour state standards for ozone and the 24-hour state standard for PM10 (SLOAPCD 2019). Future development throughout San Luis Obispo County would create ozone and PM10 emissions, which would contribute to continued or exacerbated violation of state emissions standards, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to air quality. As discussed under Impact AQ-1, buildout of the GP/LCP Update would result in an increase of population growth that exceeds the population projections used in the most recent SLOAPCD CAP for the same area. The population increase would result in individual development projects that may exceed regulatory thresholds. The 2001 CAP is intended to bring the County into attainment of the State ozone standard. Because the GP/LCP Update would be inconsistent with the CAP, the GP/LCP Update’s contribution to cumulative regional air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The GP/LCP Update includes an increase of commercial development and regional VMT. This could potentially increase emissions of TACs, CO, and odor nuisances in the region and potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, the GP/LCP Update includes goals, policies, and actions to minimize these effects. Individual project development may require implementation of project-specific mitigation measures to reduce pollutant exposure to sensitive receptors or nuisance odors.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.2-24

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1

4.3 Biological Resources
This section addresses the existing environmental conditions and regulatory setting for biological resources in the City of Pismo Beach and its sphere of influence (SOI) and provides an assessment of the potential for direct and indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities, special status species, regulated waterways and wetlands, sensitive habitat and mature native trees, and wildlife movement corridors.

4.3.1 Setting
The City of Pismo Beach is located along the Central Coast of California, midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Pismo Beach is boarded by the beach and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and hills of the Pismo Preserve to the northeast. The Cities of Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande are to the south and east of Pismo Beach, and the unincorporated community of Avila Beach lies just to the north. The City includes a variety of land use types, including residential, commercial, and industrial areas, as well as open undeveloped space consisting of native and non-native vegetation communities.
a. Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types
Pismo Beach has a wide diversity of tree (hardwood and coniferous forests, oak woodlands), shrub (chaparrals, coastal scrubs), and herbaceous (grasslands) terrestrial habitat types. Remaining areas include developed and sparsely vegetated/barren land cover types.

Vegetation communities provide wildlife habitat components including food, shelter, movement corridors, and breeding opportunities for wildlife species. They are classified in general terms with an emphasis on vegetation structure, vegetation species composition, soil structure, and water availability. Some wildlife species are generalists that use a variety of habitats, while other species are adapted to very specific habitats. Species that are limited to a single habitat type are more vulnerable to habitat loss and disturbance than are generalists and, therefore, may be more at risk to experience population declines.

Figure 4.3-1 displays the major vegetation communities and other land cover types present in Pismo Beach and the SOI. This information is based on data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Landfire GIS database (USDA 2016). The Landfire GIS database identifies vegetation communities based on Terrestrial Ecological Systems of the United States (NatureServe 2009). Vegetation communities range from grasslands to areas of scrub, to areas with forest cover. However, the majority of the vegetation communities are within the SOI. The majority of the area within City limits is developed and does not contain vegetation communities.

Descriptions of each vegetation community in the City and SOI are provided below.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-2
Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types in Pismo Beach

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3
Chaparral
Chaparral vegetation is characterized by hard-leafed shrubs and dwarf trees, the branches of which are often very stiff and woody. Chaparral often occupies hot, dry slopes but can occur on a variety of substrates including valleys and sand dunes. Most dominant chaparral species have adaptations to fire that allow them to survive fires and/or enhance their seeds’ germination rates (Holland and Keil 1995). Chaparral vegetation communities include California mesic chaparral, northern and central California dry-mesic chaparral, and southern California dry-mesic chaparral.

California mesic chaparral tends to be dominated by a variety of mixed or single species of shrubs with thick, evergreen leaves that resprout from buds in the remaining root mass following fire.

Common species include scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni var. frutescens), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), flowering ash (Fraxinus dipetala), ashy silk tassel (Garrya flavescens), coast silk tassel (Garrya elliptica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), redberry (Rhamnus crocea), holly leaf redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), gooseberry/currant (Ribes spp.), and elderberry (Sambucus spp.).

Northern and central California dry-mesic chaparral, and southern California dry-mesic chaparral occur on coarse-grained soils with annual precipitation up to approximately 30 inches. Characteristic species of Northern and central California dry-mesic chaparral include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), buck brush (Ceanothus cuneatus), whiteleaf manzanita, common manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita), big berry manzanita, Eastwood’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa), Stanford’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos stanfordiana), flannel bush (Fremontodendron californicum), bush mallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatus), bush poppy (Dendromecon rigida), and chaparral pea (Pickeringia montana).

Characteristic species of Southern central California dry-mesic chaparral include big pod Ceanothus (Ceanothus megacarpus), hoary leaved Ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius), chaparral whitethorn (Ceanothus leucodermis), desert Ceanothus (Ceanothus greggii), chamise, red shanks (Adenostoma sparsifolium), big berry manzanita, mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), smooth mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus minutiflorus), sugar sumac (Rhus ovata), and mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor).

Chaparral communities occur in the northeastern portion of the City extending towards the hills along Price Canyon Road and within the SOI to the northwest of the City limits.

Conifer-Oak Forest and Woodland
This community is primarily found in the valley margins and foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges of California approximately 360 to 3600 feet in elevation on rolling plains or dry slopes. High- quality occurrences often consist of open park-like stands of California Foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), with oaks and other various broadleaf tree and shrub species, including blue oak (Quercus douglasii), interior live oak, Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia; primarily in the central and southern Coast Ranges), valley oak (Quercus lobata), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), buck brush, coffeeberry (Frangula californica), gooseberry, California juniper (Juniperus californica), and Coulter pine (Pinus coulteri; in the central and southern Coast Ranges). California Foothill pine tends to drop out all together in the driest and more southerly sites, which are often dominated by blue oak. The California central coast region may have open stands of just California juniper, with a grassy

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-4
understory. These vegetation communities are sparsely scattered throughout the foothills in the hillside area of the SOI east of Price Canyon Road.

Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marshes are habitats intermittently or persistently flooded with water from non-tidal systems. As the name suggests, the water in these marshes is not salty or brackish. The water in freshwater marshes may arise from groundwater, streams, surface runoff, or precipitation.

Freshwater marshes primarily consist of sedges, grasses, and emergent plants. Freshwater marshes are usually found near the mouths of rivers, along lakes, and are present in areas with low drainage like abandoned oxbow lakes. Freshwater marsh covers less than one percent of the City and SOI and is located in the hills along Price Canyon Road in the SOI northeast of the City.

Grassland
Grassland vegetation communities are distributed throughout the foothills of the SOI along Price Canyon Road and to the east of Pismo Creek. This community is found within fine-textured soils, moist or even waterlogged in the winter, but very dry in the summer. Characteristic plant species include purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), threeawn (Aristida spp.), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), blow wives (Achyrachaena mollis), mountain dandelion (Agoseris heterophylla), golden stars (Bloomeria crocea), golden Brodiaea (Triteleia ixioides), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), purple clarkia (Clarkia purpurea), Jeffrey’s shooting star (Dodecatheon jeffreyi), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), valley wild rye (Leymus triticoides), California fescue (Festuca californica), California melic grass (Melica californica), narrow leaved owl's clover (Castilleja attenuata), and pine bluegrass (Poa secunda).

Introduced Annual and Perennial
Introduced annual and perennial vegetation communities are comprised of grasses and forbs introduced during and since the Spanish colonial period (Holland and Keil 1995). Introduced annual and perennial vegetation communities include introduced upland vegetation-annual and biennial forbland, introduced upland vegetation-perennial grassland and forbland, and California annual grassland. Characteristic species of introduced forb and grassland communities include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), broad leaf filaree (Erodium botrys), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), slender wild oats (Avena barbata), wild oats (Avena fatua), California goldfields (Lasthenia californica), bicolored lupine (Lupinus bicolor), and Italian rye grass (Lolium multiflorum). Introduced communities are widely spread throughout the northeastern portion of the SOI in the foothills along Price Canyon Road.

Pacific Coast Scrub
Pacific Coast Scrub vegetation communities include northern California coastal scrub and southern California coastal scrub communities. Pacific coast scrub is located in the northeastern portion of the City and is scattered throughout the foothills in the hillside area of the SOI east of Price Canyon Road. Northern California coastal scrub is restricted to coastal plateaus and lower slopes of the Coast Ranges where precipitation range from approximately 20 to 80 inches annually. These communities are dominated by evergreen shrubs; drought-deciduous species are unimportant or absent in this system. Dense shrublands typically include a well-developed woody and herbaceous understory. Characteristic species of northern California coastal scrub include coyote brush

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5
(Baccharis pilularis), yellow bush lupine (Lupinus arboreus), blueblossom (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus), seaside golden yarrow (Eriophyllum staechadifolium), sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), salmon berry (Rubus spectabilis), California coffeeberry (Frangula californica), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), salal (Gaultheria shallon), common cowparsnip (Heracleum maximum), and sword fern (Polystichum munitum).

Southern California coastal scrub is dominated by drought-deciduous shrubs but at times can have characteristic resprouting, deep-rooted shrubs with thick and leathery evergreen leaves. Soils vary from coarse gravels to clays, but typically only support plant-available moisture with winter and spring rain. Most predominant shrubs include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), black sage (Salvia mellifera), white sage (Salvia apiana), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), California brittlebush (Encelia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), ashyleaf buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum), prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), sticky monkeyflower, deerweed (Acmispon glaber) in early seral stages that follow a fire, and coyote brush in moister, disturbed sites.

Tidal Marsh
Tidal marshes are a subset of estuarine wetlands defined by the presence of emergent vegetation types uniquely adapted to sheltered intertidal zones of temperate and subtropical coastal plains (Holland and Keil 1995). They are found across a full range of salinity conditions from seawater on the immediate coast to freshwater tidal reaches of estuarine river systems. Marshes are transitional ecosystems that provide critical connections between adjacent subtidal and terrestrial ecosystems within the estuarine landscape.

Vegetation of tidal marsh communities are mostly low-growing herbaceous perennials that consists of halophytic species, which are species that prefer growing in water with high salinity. Most species have reduced leaves, and several are succulents (Holland and Keil 1995). Tidal marsh is located near Pismo Lake at the southernmost edge of the City. This community is often permanently or seasonally flooded and dominated by herbaceous plants including cattails, bulrush, and ditch-grass.

Western Oak Woodland and Savanna
Western oak woodlands are dominated by trees, mostly oaks, 15 to 70 feet tall. These woodlands vary from open savannas to dense, closed-canopy communities. The most common woodland type consists of scattered trees and shrubs with an understory of grasses and forbs. However, in savanna woodlands shrubs are often entirely absent, and the ground is essentially the same as that of grasslands (Holland and Keil 1995). Western oak woodland and savanna includes California central valley mixed oak savanna, California coastal live oak woodland and savanna, and southern California oak woodland and savanna. California central valley mixed oak savanna occurs on alluvial terraces and flat plains, often with deep, fertile soils. Valley oak (Quercus lobata) is the characteristic oak species of these savannas, though other characteristic species include interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), coast live oak, blue oak (Quercus douglasii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), California juniper (Juniperus californica), and purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra). California coastal live oak woodland and savanna are dominated by coast live oak and vary in canopy cover from dense conditions that support sparse understory vegetation of California blackberry, snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis), toyon, and poison oak, to more open conditions with perennial bunchgrass understory. Southern California oak woodlands and savannas are dominated by a mixed closed or open canopy of coast live oak, interior live oak,

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-6
Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), black oak, and/or Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica). Southern chaparral species such as chamise, California sagebrush, lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), sugar sumac (Rhus ovata), fragrant sumac (Rhus aromatica), ceanothus, gooseberry/currant, and manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) are also characteristic. These vegetation communities are scattered throughout the foothills in the hillside area of the SOI east of Price Canyon Road.

Western Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
Western Riparian Woodland and Shrubland communities occur along drainages in high mountain areas. These communities are typically dominated by deciduous trees or large shrubs; however, evergreen species may be common or dominant depending on local temperature effects (Holland and Keil 1995). Western Riparian Woodland and Shrubland, consisting of California montane riparian systems, is located in the depressions between hillsides in the foothills of the hillside area of the SOI along Price Canyon Road and along Pismo Creek. This community often occurs as a mosaic of multiple communities that are tree dominated with a diverse shrub component.

The variety of plant associations connected to this community reflects elevation, stream gradient, floodplain width, and flooding events. Dominant trees may include white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), boxelder (Acer negundo), red alder (Alnus rubra), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), red willow (Salix laevigata), Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii), Douglas fir, California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and coast live oak. Dominant shrubs include narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis).
b. Wetlands
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is a publicly available resource that provides detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of wetlands. It should be noted that some wetland and stream features, such as freshwater seeps and springs, are generally not identified as part of the NWI because of the general scale of the mapping effort. Therefore, the extent of the major wetland and waterways in Pismo Beach, based on NWI mapping, is shown below in Figure 4.3-2. Wetland features that have been mapped either within or near Pismo Beach include estuarine and marine deepwater and wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, and freshwater ponds (USFWS 2021a). As shown in Figure 4.3-2 below, NWI mapping has also identified riverine features. Riverine features correspond with streams and creeks, including Pismo Creek extending east into the foothills of the SOI along Price Canyon Road and its tributaries.

As shown in Figure 4.3-2, estuarine and marine wetlands are located in the southwestern part of the City, close to the Pismo Creek Estuary. Along the coastline, there are salt-influenced seasonal wetlands, with vegetation such as pickleweed (Salicornia spp.). Freshwater emergent wetlands occur at Pismo Lake and are surrounded by freshwater pond and freshwater forested/shrub wetlands. Freshwater forested/shrub wetlands also are located along Pismo Creek in the northeastern extent of the SOI. Freshwater marshes and wetlands have water at or near the surface, have soils differing from those of adjacent uplands, and vegetation adapted to wet conditions. Often, freshwater wetlands can be important waterfowl habitat.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
Figure 4.3-2 Wetlands in Pismo Beach

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-8
Based on aerial photography, NWI mapping, and proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the streams and the majority of the wetlands in Pismo Beach are likely subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, these wetlands and streams are subject to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) jurisdiction.
c. Sensitive Natural Communities, ESHA, and Critical Habitats Definitions
Sensitive natural communities are vegetation types, associations, or sub-associations that support concentrations of special status plant and/or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, and/or are of particular value to wildlife. According to the CDFW Vegetation Program, Alliances with State ranks of S1-S3 and certain other specified associations are considered imperiled, and thus, potentially of special concern. Natural communities with these ranks are generally addressed during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review with compensatory mitigation prescribed for impacts as applicable. Riparian areas are also considered sensitive natural communities by CDFW. Similarly, the California Coastal Act Section 30107.5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), discusses sensitive natural communities as Environmentally Sensitive Areas, which include any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem, and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. The California Coastal Act criteria for determining whether a vegetation community qualifies as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) are based upon the habitat’s ecological importance, including the rarity or function of the habitat. Many of the vegetation communities that meet CDFW’s definition as sensitive are also ESHAs.

Critical habitat is a term used in the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and defined as a specific geographic area (or areas) that contain features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery.

These areas provide notice to the public and land managers of the importance of these areas to the conservation of a listed species. Special protections and/or restrictions are possible in these areas when Federal funding, permits, licenses, authorizations, or actions occur or are required.

Sensitive Habitats within the City and SOI
In coastal areas, sensitive natural communities and riparian areas as defined by CDFW are also typically considered to be ESHAs. Many ESHAs are vegetation communities that are included in the CDFW sensitive natural community list; however, ESHA also includes areas with breeding, roosting, or other essential habitat for protected species even when the vegetation itself is not sensitive.

Generally, ESHAs include many types of woodlands, riparian areas, coastal plains and prairies. Pismo Beach’s ESHAs include portions of Pismo State Beach, Pismo Marsh, Price Canyon, Pismo Creek, Pismo Preserve, Meadow Creek, the dunes habitat of the Pismo State Beach, and the Monarch Butterfly Grove. Habitat which supports endangered species in the area would likely qualify as ESHA.

An important component of the combined General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) is to ensure that ESHA are identified and protected in future development proposals consistent with Coastal Act requirements. The Coastal Act restricts development within ESHA to only resource-dependent uses and requires that ESHA be protected against significant disruption of habitat values (Section 30240).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9
The Coastal Act also requires areas adjacent to ESHA to be sited and designed to prevent degradation of ESHA and to be compatible with the continuance of those habitat areas. This is typically established through ESHA buffers, among other policies.

For portions of Pismo Beach outside the coastal zone, ESHA designations would not apply. Sensitive natural communities in these areas include drainages, riparian and wetland communities, and could also include unique chaparral alliances and perennial grasslands consistent with CDFW’s definitions of a sensitive natural community.

The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (2021b) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) West Coast Critical Habitat website (2021) depict designated critical habitats in Pismo Beach. The only designated critical habitat within or immediately adjacent to Pismo Beach includes habitat suitable for tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), as shown on Figure 4.3-3. Critical habitat for tidewater goby is located in Pismo Creek as it drains into the Pacific Ocean at the southwestern edge of the City.
d. Special Status Species
For the purpose of this analysis, special status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act; those listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act; plants listed as rare by the CDFW under the Native Plant Protection Act; and animals designated as “Species of Special Concern,” “Fully Protected,” or “Watch List” by the CDFW. Those plants ranked as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 or 2 are typically regarded as rare, threatened, or endangered under CEQA by lead agencies and were considered as such in this EIR. The CRPR utilizes the following code definitions:
 List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California
 List 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences are threatened or have a high degree and immediacy of threat)  List 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent of occurrences are threatened)
 List 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere but not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)  List 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR List 3 species are “review list,” and CRPR 4 species are considered “watch list” species. CRPR 3 and 4 species do not typically warrant analysis under CEQA except where they are part of a unique community, from the type locality, or designated as rare or significant by local governments, or where cumulative impacts could result in population–level effects. The CRPR 3 and 4 species reported from the region are not locally designated as rare or significant by the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo, Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) or General Plans and are not part of a unique community, and the project area is not known to be the type locality for any ranked plant species. Therefore, potential impacts to CRPR 3 and CRPR 4 species were not considered further in this analysis.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-10
Figure 4.3-3 Critical Habitat in Pismo Beach

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
Pismo Beach is home to several species protected by federal and State agencies, and the area surrounding the city also supports suitable habitat for many special status species. Information regarding the occurrences of special-status species in the vicinity of the City limits was obtained from a query of CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2021a), the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) (USFWS 2021c), and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021). The query of these data sources was for the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Pismo Beach and six surrounding 7.5-minute series quadrangles (Morro Bay South, San Luis Obispo, Lopez Mtn., Port San Luis, Arroyo Grande NE, Oceano), and it was conducted in February 2021. This query range encompasses the City limits and a five-mile buffer of the City limits. This is a sufficient distance to accommodate for regional habitat diversity and to overcome the limitations of the CNDDB, because the CNDDB is based on reports of actual occurrences and does not constitute an exhaustive inventory of every resource. See Appendix D for detailed species lists.

Listed Species
Federal, State, and local authorities under a variety of legislative acts share regulatory authority over biological resources. The CDFW has direct jurisdiction under law for biological resources through the State Fish and Game Code and under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) also provides direct regulatory authority over specially designated organisms and their habitats to the USFWS. These acts specifically regulate listed and candidate endangered and threatened species, which are defined as:
 Endangered Species: any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
 Threatened Species: any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range Special Status Plants
Based on the database and literature review, 76 special status plant species are known to occur, or have potential to occur, within the City, SOI, or surrounding area. Many of these species are associated with ESHAs, or with sensitive natural communities in areas outside the coastal zone.

Table D-1 in Appendix D lists these special status plant species, their listing status, and their CRPR.

Special status plants that are known or have potential to occur in the City and surrounding area can occupy a broad range of habitat types. Some are associated with foredune and backdune systems, such as beach spectacle pod (Dithyrea maritima), dune larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp.

Blochmaniae), Blochman’s leafy daisy (Erigeron blochmaniae), and coast woolly-heads (Nemacaulis denudata var. denudate). Others are associated with chaparral communities, such as several of the manzanita species. Some species occur in serpentine-influenced soils, including Jones’ layia (Layia jonesii) and the fritillaries. Others are associated with coastal salt marsh and estuary habitats, including marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola). Additionally, some of the species listed are not currently known from within the City limits or Sphere of Influence but are regionally occurring species that could occur in the surrounding area.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-12
Special Status Wildlife
Based on the database and literature review, 36 special status wildlife species are known, or have potential to occur within the City, SOI, or surrounding area. Many of these species are associated with ESHAs or with sensitive natural communities outside the coastal zone. Table D-2 in Appendix D lists these special status wildlife species, their listing status, and other status designations.

Generally, special status species are most likely to occur in undeveloped areas and open space areas. However, riparian areas that intersect urban development may also provide habitat and movement corridors for special status species.

Pismo Beach and the surrounding area also provides important habitat for avian wildlife, including several listed species and other special status species. Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) is known to nest in dune habitats within the city. Additionally, rookeries of herons, egrets, and cormorants are known to occur in Pismo Beach and surrounding area. Species such as tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) are not reported to nest within the City but could nest in more rural portions of the area surrounding the city. Populations of California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) and California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni) are also known to occur south of Pismo Beach at the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area.

Ponds, wetlands, streams, and riparian areas provide habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic amphibians and reptiles, including California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata). Critical habitat for tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is located in the brackish portion of Pismo Creek as it meets the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, streams in the City provide potentially suitable habitat and passage for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus).
e. Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

The habitats within the link do not necessarily need to be the same as the habitats that are being linked. Rather, the link merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground-dwelling species. Typically, habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Depending upon the species using a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower-moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources spaced sufficiently close together to permit travel along a route in a short period of time.

Wildlife movement corridors can be both large and small scale. Regionally, Pismo Beach is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area (ECA), as mapped in the report, California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California (Spencer et al. 2010).

Essential Connectivity Areas represent principle connections between Natural Landscape Blocks.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
Essential Connectivity Areas are regions in which land conservation and management actions should be prioritized to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity. Essential Connectivity Areas are mapped based on coarse ecological condition indicators, rather than the needs of particular species and thus serve the majority of species in each region.

Small scale habitat corridors are present in Pismo Beach in the coastal zone and inland areas and include drainages and other topographic features that facilitate movement, and contiguous areas of natural vegetation, including the coastal dunes and the Pismo Preserve. Perennial streams, wetlands, shallow bays and estuaries, including Pismo Creek and Pismo Marsh, provide potential fish and other aquatic wildlife movement habitat. Pismo Creek is critical habitat for tidewater goby and provides essential habitat connectivity between the Pacific Ocean and spawning habitat upstream.

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal, State, and local authorities under a variety of statutes and guidelines share regulatory authority over biological resources. The primary authority for general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions, which in this instance includes the City of Pismo Beach and for areas outside city limits, the County of San Luis Obispo. The CDFW is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the State as defined in CEQA and also has direct jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game Code, which includes, but is not limited to, resources protected by the State of California under the CESA. In addition, the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is a responsible agency for waters of the State. The California Coastal Commission also has the authority to approve the LCP and has the right to appeal development projects within the Coastal Zone. Below are summaries of the federal, State, and local regulations or guiding documents that could apply.
a. Federal Regulations
Endangered Species Act
Under the ESA, authorization is required to “take” a listed species. Take is defined under Section 3 of the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under federal regulation (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Sections 17.3, 222.102); “harm” is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation where it would be expected to result in death or injury to listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act outlines procedures for federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat.

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and its implementing regulations require federal agencies to consult with USFWS or NMFS to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For projects where federal action is not involved and take of a listed species may occur, the project proponent may seek to obtain an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the ESA. Section 10(a) allows USFWS to permit the incidental take of listed species if

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-14
such take is accompanied by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that includes components to minimize and mitigate impacts associated with the take.

The USFWS and NMFS share responsibility and regulatory authority for implementing the ESA (7 United States Code [USC] Section 136, 16 USC Section 1531 et seq.).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The act provides that it is unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, “to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, […] any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird” (16 USC Section 703(a)). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is the primary law protecting eagles, including individuals and their nests and eggs. The USFWS implements the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668). Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act’s Eagle Permit Rule (50 CFR 22.26), USFWS may issue permits to authorize limited, non-purposeful take of bald eagles and golden eagles.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) regulates marine fisheries in U.S. federal waters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was first passed in 1976 and was revised in 1996 and 2007. The purpose of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to provide long-term biological and economic sustainability of U.S. marine fisheries.

The NMFS has regulatory authority for implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NMFS requires regional fishery management councils to develop Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) specific to their regions, fisheries and fish stocks. For waters off the U.S. West Coast, the Pacific Fishery Management Council has developed four FMPs, which are implemented through fisheries regulations for coastal pelagic species, groundfish species, highly migratory species and salmon species. These FMPs also identify Essential Fish Habitat, which is broadly defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.

Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting through the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Regulated activities include dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, rechannelization and construction of any structure or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States.

Clean Water Act
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the USACE, with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight, has authority to regulate activities that result in discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands or other “waters of the United States.” Perennial and intermittent creeks are considered waters of the United States if they are hydrologically connected to other jurisdictional waters. In achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, the USACE seeks to avoid adverse impacts and offset unavoidable adverse impacts on existing aquatic resources. Any discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional wetlands or other jurisdictional “waters of the United States” would require a Section 404 permit from the USACE prior to the start of work. Typically, when a project

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15
involves impacts to waters of the United States, the goal of no net loss of wetlands is met by compensatory mitigation; in general, the type and location options for compensatory mitigation should comply with the hierarchy established by the USACE/EPA 2008 Mitigation Rule (in descending order): (1) mitigation banks; (2) in-lieu fee programs; and (3) permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation. Also, in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, applicants for a Section 404 permit must obtain water quality certification from the SWRCB or appropriate RWQCB.
b. State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
CESA (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.) prohibits take of State-listed threatened and endangered species without a CDFW incidental take permit. Take under CESA is restricted to direct harm of a listed species and does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification.

Protection of fully protected species is described in California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species.

Incidental take of fully protected species may be authorized under an approved Natural Communities Conservation Plan.

Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act was established by the California Legislature, is directed by the CDFW, and is implemented by the State, as well as public and private partnerships as a means to protect habitat in California. The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act takes a regional approach to preserving habitat. A Natural Communities Conservation Plan identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Once a Natural Communities Conservation Plan has been approved, CDFW may provide take authorization for all covered species, including fully protected species, Section 2835 of the California Fish and Game Code.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3511 California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3511 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of birds, nests and eggs. Fully protected birds (California Fish and Game Code Section 3511) may not be taken or possessed except under specific permit. Section 3503.5 protects all birds- of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare. Under Section 1913(c) of the NPPA, the owner of land where a rare or endangered native plant is growing is required to notify the CDFW at least 10 days in advance of changing the land use to allow for salvage of the plant(s).

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-16
Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits, without prior notification to CDFW, the substantial diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of, or substantial change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. In order for these activities to occur, the CDFW must receive written notification regarding the activity in the manner prescribed by the CDFW and may require a lake or streambed alteration agreement. Lakes, ponds, perennial and intermittent streams and associated riparian vegetation, when present, are subject to this regulation.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, projects that apply for a USACE permit for discharge of dredge or fill material must also obtain water quality certification under Section 401 from the RWQCB. Additionally, the SWRCB and each of nine local RWQCBs have jurisdiction over “waters of the State” pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. The SWRCB has issued general Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) regarding discharges to “isolated” waters of the State (Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges to Waters Deemed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be Outside of Federal Jurisdiction). The local RWQCB implements this general order for isolated waters not subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Clean Water Act and associated federal regulations (Title 40 of the CFR 123.25(a)(9), 122.26(a), 122.26(b)(14)(x) and 122.26(b)(15)) require nearly all construction site operators engaged in clearing, grading, and excavating activities that disturb one acre or more, including smaller sites in a larger common plan of development or sale, to obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for their stormwater discharges, and develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The NPDES Program is a federal program which has been delegated to the State of California for implementation through the SWRCB and RWQCBs.

California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act) outlines standards for development within the coastal zone and includes specific policies (see Division 20 of the Public Resources Code) that address issues such as terrestrial and marine habitat protection, commercial fisheries, and water quality. The coastal zone encompasses 1.5 million acres of land and stretches from three miles at sea to an inland boundary that varies from several blocks in urban areas to as much as five miles in less developed areas. The majority of the Pismo Beach is located within the coastal zone. The coastal zone extends into federal waters under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act contains the standards used by the California Coastal Commission in the review of coastal development permits and local coastal plans. The seven articles within Chapter 3 govern all development along the coast, and mandate protection of public access, recreational opportunities, and marine and land resources. Chapter 3, Article 4 addresses protection of the marine environment including water quality issues, wetlands protections, and coastal armoring.

Chapter 3, Article 5 includes protections for environmentally sensitive habitat.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17
c. Local Regulations
Pismo Beach Municipal Code
The Pismo Beach Municipal Code Title 12, Chapter 12.12, City tree regulations, outlines a comprehensive plan for the planting and maintenance of trees in, on, or within the public right-of- way, provides rules and regulations for the planting, care and maintenance of such trees, and defines landmark and specimen trees.

The Pismo Beach Municipal Code Title 17, Article 3, Section 17.30.070, Oak tree preservation, establishes standards for the preservation of native oak species (Quercus agrifolia, Quercus lobata, Quercus chrysolepis), in compliance with Policy CO-13 of the conservation and open space element of the GP/LCP. This section prohibits the cutting, removal, encroachment into, or brush removal from the protected zone of any oak tree, or the removal or transplanting of any oak tree on public or private property within the city, unless the removal has been authorized with approval of a land use permit as described in Section 17.30.070.

The Pismo Beach Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning, implements the GP/LCP. The Pismo Beach Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.16.050, Special Development Standards for Conditional Uses in the Open Space District, identifies ESHAs to be protected and preserved, including buffers, outlines allowed uses, and restricts new uses and expansions of existing uses in these areas. Reduction of buffers requires consultation with CDFW, mitigation, and consistency with existing policies in the coastal land use plan. This chapter also requires that no development be allowed within an ESHA identified in GP/LCP.

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
Environmental impacts to biological resources may be assessed using impact significance criteria from federal, State, and local regulations. CEQA, Chapter 1, Section 21001 (c) states that it is the policy of the State of California to “prevent the elimination of fish and wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities.” Environmental impacts relative to biological resources may be assessed using impact significance criteria encompassing CEQA Guidelines and federal, State and local plans, regulations, and ordinances.

The impact analysis is based on available literature regarding the existing biological resources within Pismo Beach and the SOI. Data used for this analysis are summarized in the Section 4.3.1. b. Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts would be significant if the adoption and implementation of the GP/LCP Update would result in any of the following:

1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-18

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption, or other means

4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites

5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan The following section presents an analysis of the potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources from the adoption and implementation of the GP/LCP Update. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents an analysis of the potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources from the adoption and implementation of the GP/LCP Update.

Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS?
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Impact BIO-1 NEW DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE COULD RESULT IN ISOLATED IMPACTS TO HABITAT FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND IMPACTS TO MIGRATORY BIRD NEST SITES. WITH

COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GP/LCP UPDATE POLICIES, IMPACTS

WITH COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GP/LCP UPDATE POLICIES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As indicated above under Section 4.3.1, Setting, the majority of the City is developed and does not provide habitat for special-status species reported or known to occur in or near Pismo Beach. Areas that may provide habitat for special-status species are primarily located in the open space and undeveloped hillside in the SOI immediately to the south of Price Canyon Road as well as the marsh and wetlands habitat adjacent to Pismo Creek Estuary and Pismo Lake in the southwestern part of the City.

State and/or federally listed animal species with the potential to occur as year-round residents in the City include western snowy plover, California red-legged frog, steelhead (south-central California coast DPS), and tidewater goby. Several additional listed species of birds, including tri- colored blackbird, California least tern and California black rail are known to have local breeding populations adjacent to the City and SOI or have been reported wintering or migrating through the City. The non-listed fully protected species, white tailed kite, is known to occur in the foothills

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-19
adjacent to the City and therefore may occur within the City’s SOI or surrounding area. Other native birds are also known to nest in the planning area, including species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as native birds whose nests are protected by California Fish and Game Code.

Several non-listed species of special concern are also known or have potential to occur in Pismo Beach, including Northern California legless lizard, coast horned lizard, western pond turtle, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and American badger. Suitable habitat for special status wildlife is primarily associated with areas identified as ESHA within current City limits, and with native vegetation communities in the surrounding area.

State and/or federally listed plant species known or with the potential to occur Pismo Beach include marsh sandwort, surf thistle, Pismo clarkia, and beach spectacle pod. Potentially suitable habitat in the surrounding area is also present for La Graciosa thistle, Indian knob mountainbalm, Nipomo Mesa lupine, and Gambel’s water cress, as well as numerous additional non-listed special status plants. Suitable habitat for special-status plants is primarily associated with ESHA within the existing City limits, and within native vegetation communities in the surrounding area.

The goals, policies, and implementation actions of the GP/LCP Update allow for growth and redevelopment within the existing City limits of Pismo Beach. Future development within the SOI is not included within the buildout assumptions of the GP/LCP Update. More specifically, the GP/LCP Update would facilitate development of up to 1,111 new residential units and 783,268 square feet of non-residential building area within the Pismo Beach City limits. The GP/LCP Update would focus on infill development and redevelopment within the existing City limits. These areas are currently developed with residential and non-residential uses and do not provide habitat suitable for the aforementioned special-status species. The GP/LCP Update designates the undeveloped marsh and wetlands at the southern boundary of the City as well as the chaparral dominated area at the northwestern extent of the City as Open Space. This land use designation would prevent substantial development of the habitat that these sensitive communities provide.

The GP/LCP Update does not include changes to existing Open Space land use designations, including along creeks, waterways, and wetlands in the City. Therefore, the GP/LCP would not facilitate permanent development in riparian vegetation along these creeks. Because the development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would occur as redevelopment and infill within developed areas of the City, existing roads, water, and sewer are already in place and would minimize the need for construction of new utilities and infrastructure. However, the GP/LCP Update increases the allowable density that could be constructed on some infill and redevelopment sites within the City, which could require upgraded utilities. The construction of these upgraded facilities could require work within riparian vegetation along creeks and waterways in the City, resulting in potential temporary riparian and aquatic habitat impacts. These habitats could support several special-status species, such as tidewater goby or California red-legged frog. Additionally, development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update could impact isolated trees and pockets of vegetation in the urbanized areas of Pismo Beach. These trees and isolated pockets could provide habitat for special-status species, including migratory nesting birds.

The development facilitated under the GP/LCP Update would be subject to the provisions of the various federal and State natural resources regulations and their respective permitting processes.

Additionally, the GP/LCP Update contains goals, policies, and actions that call for the preservation and protection of natural resources and the managed production of natural resources. These goals, policies and actions, listed below, would reduce impacts to special-status species and their habitats.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-20
Land Use and Community Design Element
 Policy LU-1.4. Non-Polluting Industrial Uses. The Industrial land use designations shall permit nonpolluting, warehousing, distribution, assembly and light manufacturing uses.  Action LU-1.4a. Pismo Creek and Pismo Marsh Impacts. Industrial development shall not adversely impact the sensitive habitats of Pismo Creek or Pismo Marsh.  Policy LU-1.6: Preserve Open Space. Open space lands, including public and private parks, shall not be developed intensively with buildings or other structures.  Action LU-1.6b: Citywide Open Space Network. The City shall include the lake, creeks, and marsh as part of a Citywide and regional network of open space, parks, and – where appropriate – trails, all fostering understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife.
 Action LU-1.6c: Permanent Open Space. The area between Shell Beach Road and the 101 Freeway shall remain in permanent open space. No further land divisions shall be approved in this area.
 Action LU-1.6e: Freeway Underpass Open Space. The open hills on the eastern end of the Spyglass underpass of Highway 101 shall remain in permanent open space.  Action LU-2.2d: Special Tree Preservation. A number of special and important trees or tree grouping exist within Pismo Beach which shall be preserved. The types of trees that shall be preserved include oak trees.

Goal LU-8: A community that protects and enhances natural and coastal resources within Pismo Beach.
 Policy LU-8.1: Natural Resources Compatibility. Require all land use proposals to respect, preserve and enhance, to the maximum extent feasible, the sensitive habitats, natural landforms, scenic resources, and other coastal resources of Pismo Beach. Development shall only be authorized when the proposed use is allowed per the applicable land use designation, and when it meets all applicable GP/LCP policies and standards.  Action LU-8.1a: Identify and Map Natural Resources. The City shall prepare and maintain geographic information systems-based maps of the City, identifying the natural resources such as wildlife habitats and open space, viewsheds, terrain, and hillsides. The natural resource map shall also show development constraints such as flood hazard areas, geological hazard areas, soil hazard areas (subsidence, liquefaction), and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The maps shall provide the basis of determining where urban development is most appropriate, and where other needs of the community, or requirements to protect coastal resources, outweigh the desire or need for urban development. As a result of the findings of these maps, the City shall re-evaluate its land use designations and future plans for undeveloped areas and revise the Land Use Map accordingly. Any revisions to the land use designations or Land Use Map shall require a GP/LCP amendment certified by the CCC.
 Action LU-8.1b: Coastal Resources. New development and improvements to existing development shall be sited and designed to avoid adverse impacts on coastal resources, including environmentally sensitive habitat areas, wetlands, and other areas of the City of biological or natural significance. Development shall be consistent with the resource protection policies of the GP/LCP, including the Conservation and Open Space Element.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-21
 Action LU-8.1d: Reduce Adjacent Density. Prohibit land divisions within, or immediately adjacent to, environmentally sensitive habitat. Discourage development immediately adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas to keep development intensity as low as possible.

Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal COS-4. A community that provides and protects a variety of conservation areas such as the ocean and beaches, bluffs, dunes, foothills, marshes, creeks, and wetlands that act as suitable coastal and inland habitat, migratory corridors, and ecologically valuable topography.  Policy COS-4.1 – Conserve Marine Resources. The Pacific Ocean and shoreline provide a plethora of valuable habitat and resources for marine mammals, fish, plant life, and other wildlife. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance.

Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will (1) sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters, (2) help ensure the continuation of a healthy, self- renewing marine ecosystem, and (3) help ensure the long-term survival of healthy populations of marine plants and animals. To ensure conservation of these resources, the City shall restrict the allowed activities within or in proximity to the Pacific Ocean.  Action COS-4.1a: Marine Mammal Habitat. Prohibit Marine Mammal habitats from being altered or disturbed by development of recreational facilities or any other new land uses.  Action COS-4.1b: Northern Rocky Beach Areas. In order to preserve the habitat, the clifftops, eroding bluffs, caves, and sandy pocket beaches provided in the northern rocky beach areas, the City shall restrict recreational public access along the eroding bluffs to maintain bluff stability and provide habitat free of human disturbance.  Action COS-4.1c: Intertidal Zone. The intertidal zone is a valuable recreational resource area for beach-going, fishing, bird watching and jogging. The City shall seek balance between the recreational uses of the intertidal zone and the preservation of the natural resources in the intertidal zone. In order to preserve and enhance intertidal habitat, the City shall:

1. Maintain and enhance areas of rocky intertidal habitat that provide multiple ecological benefits while also reducing wave energy and erosion at the bluff toe, which are threatened by habitat loss due to sea level rise and coastal squeeze. These areas shall have restricted public access to preserve habitat value.

2. Analyze the effects on intertidal habitat when considering coastal erosion measures such as shoreline protective devices.

3. Prohibit machinery at any time to the extent feasible in the intertidal zone.  Action COS-4.1d: Clam Beds. The clam bed preserves within the City of Pismo Beach shall be protected.
 Action COS-4.1e: Fish Habitat. Nearshore shallow fish habitats and shore fishing shall be preserved, and where appropriate and feasible, restored or enhanced.  Action COS-4.1f: Subtidal Zone. Although the subtidal zone is beyond the City’s jurisdiction, the City has an indirect responsibility for activities that affect the natural resources of the zone. Considering the subtidal zone provides habitat for protected wildlife and marine mammals, the City shall:

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-22

1. Prevent and capture land sources of trash before they enter the ocean within the City’s jurisdiction.

2. Develop the most effective ways of restoring and protecting listed rare and endangered species such as eelgrass, black abalone, and sea turtles.

3. Discourage offshore federal leasing of offshore land for the purpose of oil drilling operations that would thus jeopardize inhabitants of the lower subtidal zone through accidental oil spills.
 Action COS-4.1g: Sand Dunes. Protect sand dunes from adverse impacts due to a proposed development project and provide appropriate habitat buffers.  Action COS-4.1h: Maintain Beach Resources and Shoreline as Open Space. The ocean shore is, and shall continue to be, the principle open space feature of Pismo Beach. Ocean front land shall be used for open space, recreation and related uses where feasible and where such uses do not deteriorate the natural resource. Reserve sandy beach areas for low intensity recreational activities that do not require intensive development. Any permitted structures shall be the alternative with the least impact on coastal resources and recreation, the minimum size necessary, and shall provide any necessary mitigation. Recreational uses that can be accommodated elsewhere shall be discouraged on the sandy beach (i.e., sport courts and similar facilities permanently displacing sandy beach). Non-sandy beach dependent active recreational activities shall be discouraged and accommodated elsewhere.  Action COS-4.1j: Beach Grooming. “Beach wrack,” or the mounds of seaweed and other organic material that washes ashore, is an important nutrient source for the beach ecosystem, contributes to the establishment of coastal strand and dune habitat, and provides a micro-habitat for a variety of organisms, including California grunion, as well as the western snowy plover and California least tern. Develop a beach cleaning plan that allows for necessary grooming and refuse removal activities while maintaining species richness, abundance, and diversity and encouraging healthy beach ecosystems.  Policy COS-4.3 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. Limited public access improvements, minor educational interpretive and research activities, and restoration may be considered resource-dependent uses. Development in areas adjacent to ESHA and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
 Action COS-4.3a: Definition of ESHA. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) shall be defined as any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments. An area shall be considered ESHA if it fits this Coastal Act definition, and likely includes portions of Pismo State Beach, Pismo Lake, Price Canyon, Pismo Creek, Pismo Preserve, Meadow Creek, the dunes habitat, and the Monarch Butterfly Grove.
 Action COS-4.3b: ESHA Assessment. Applications for development within or near ESHA, including wetlands, dunes and streams, shall be accompanied by a site-specific habitat assessment prepared by a qualified biologist and a botanical survey by a qualified expert prepared at the owner’s expense, prior to consideration of a project within the City.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-23
▫ Action COS-4.3c: Habitat Assessment. The habitat assessment and botanical survey shall, at a minimum, identify and confirm the extent of the ESHA, document any site constraints and the presence of sensitive species, recommend buffers and development setbacks and standards to protect the ESHA, recommend mitigation measures to address any allowable impacts, and include any other information and analyses necessary to understand potential ESHA impacts, including cumulative impacts, as well as measures necessary to protect the ESHA resource as required by the GP/LCP. The habitat assessment shall also include an analysis of available literature and biological databases, to determine if any sensitive biological resources have been reported as historically occurring in the proposed development project vicinity. At a minimum, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) must be used to determine if the site of the proposed project is known to support or has the potential to support sensitive habitat, vegetation communities, plants, and/or animals.
 Action COS-4.3d: ESHA Buffers. Development adjacent to ESHAs shall minimize impacts to habitat values or sensitive species to the maximum extent feasible. Native vegetation buffer areas shall be provided around ESHAs to serve as transitional habitat (not fuel modification zones) and provide distance and physical barriers to human intrusion. Buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the ESHA they are designed to protect. All buffers around (non-wetland) ESHA shall be a minimum of 50 feet in width. This width may be adjusted by the City as appropriate to protect the ESHA habitat value of the resource but shall not be less than 25 feet. Such reduction shall only be allowed if the reduced buffer provides the same or greater protection to the ESHA than the required buffer. Such adjustment shall be made on the basis of a biological site assessment supported by substantial evidence that includes but is not limited to:

Sensitivity of the ESHA, including any sensitive species, to disturbance.

Habitat requirements of the ESHA, including the migratory patterns of affected species and tendency to return each season to the same nest site or breeding colony.

Topography of the site.

Movement of stormwater.

Permeability of the soils and depth to water table.

Vegetation present.

Unique site conditions.

Whether vegetative, natural topographic, or built features (e.g., roads, structures) provide a physical barrier between the proposed development and the ESHA.

The likelihood of increased human activity and disturbance resulting from the project relative to existing development.

When constructing trails within sensitive natural communities, a 25-foot buffer will be required to avoid impacts. the buffer may be reduced if the site terrain allows development to be sited downslope or topographically separated from these habitats, or if the lot size and shape makes the setback infeasible. revegetation within 25 feet of these areas must use native plants. Disturbance footprints adjacent to these upland sensitive natural communities shall be clearly marked in the field with temporary fencing or rope lines. The adjacent habitat shall be identified by signage as sensitive habitat to be retained.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-24
 Action COS-4.3e: Structures in Non-Wetland ESHA Buffers and Reduction of Non-Wetland ESHA Buffers. No permanent structures shall be permitted within the setback area except for the minimum amount of fencing required for security and habitat protection purposes or structures of a minor nature such as fences or at grade improvements for pedestrian or equestrian trails. Allow for passive recreational and educational uses, including trails, maintenance of existing utilities, as well as construction of roads, bridges, and culverts in stream or riparian areas in the event alternative routes cannot avoid stream or riparian area or would be more damaging. Development adjacent to streams and riparian areas should be sited to retain the stream and riparian habitat.

Where possible, buffers should be as follows:
i. As far from the riparian area or stream top of banks as feasible, provided other resources are not negatively impacted, with consideration for site terrain features that would minimize impacts.
ii. A minimum of 50 feet from the edge of stream or riparian area. (See Action COS

4.8a for buffers specific to Pismo Creek)
The buffer may be reduced per determination of City staff for sites on which the linear distance is not met but the proposed project is separated from ESHA by topography (e.g., downslope or on the opposite side of a ridge).

Ongoing maintenance of existing channelized features and storm drainage channels for flood control shall be allowed.

Management of riparian vegetation to support public safety needs shall be allowed.

Where the setbacks cannot be met due to lot size or shape, setback adjustments would be allowed (to within 10 feet of stream or riparian area or top of bank) if:
i. Site is unusable for the principal purpose if the setback is not reduced. ii. Reduction is the minimum necessary that allows the use after all practical design modifications are evaluated.

Where setback variances are granted, additional requirements apply:
i. Site drainage must be evaluated to ensure development does not cut off hydrology. ii. Stormwater from the development must be managed such that it does not contribute sediment or pollutants into the ESHA.
iii. Where feasible, and where native vegetation is not already present, native vegetation screening must be planted between the ESHA and the development.

Unavoidable impacts would require permits and mitigation.

Alterations to streams and riparian areas from permitted uses must demonstrate that the necessary permits from USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB have been obtained. Such projects must demonstrate that the design incorporates preferred elements, such as natural bottom culverts, minimal disturbance to native vegetation, and appropriate management of drainage.
 Action COS-4.3f: Existing Development Within ESHA Buffers. Existing development that was legally permitted and constructed prior to certification of this policy that is located in the required buffers identified in Action 3.2d, ESHA Buffers, is allowed to be maintained or remodeled unless the remodel or maintenance replaces 50% or more of the structure, at

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-25
which point the entire development must conform with all applicable ESHA policies and standards, and the existing development does not increase the encroachment into the required setback/buffer from the ESHA. Any expansion or addition to existing development shall not increase the nonconformity and conform to the required setback.  Action COS-4.3g: ESHA Dedication. In conjunction with new development, require that all preserved ESHA, buffers, and all mitigation areas, on site and off site, be conserved/dedicated (e.g., open space direct dedication, offer to dedicate [OTD], conservation easement, or deed restriction), in such a manner as to ensure that the land is conserved in perpetuity, if those preserved lands total one acre or more. A management plan and funding shall be required to ensure appropriate management of the habitat area in perpetuity. The City shall maintain an inventory of open space dedications or OTDs to ensure such areas are known to the public and are protected through the coastal development permit process. Require all direct open space dedications or OTDs to be made to a public agency or other appropriate entity that will manage the open space area on behalf of the public.
 Action COS-4.3h: ESHA Mitigation. For allowable resource-dependent development in ESHA that cannot avoid ESHA through siting and design alternatives, habitat creation and/or substantial restoration shall be required. Priority shall be given to on-site mitigation. Off-site mitigation measures shall only be approved when it is not feasible to fully mitigate impacts on site. Mitigation shall not substitute for implementation of a project alternative that would avoid impacts to ESHA. Sea level rise should be incorporated into the planning of any new coastal habitat restoration, creation, or enhancement projects. ▫ Action COS_4.3i: Mitigation Ratios. Apply the following mitigation ratios for allowable impacts to upland vegetation: 4:1 for wetlands; 3:1 for riparian habitats; 3:1 for other habitats that support state or federal rare, threatened, or endangered species, species of special concern or California Rare Plant Society (CNPS) 1b or 2 listed plants; 2:1 for coastal sage scrub not occupied by listed species. The ratios represent the acreage of the area to be restored/created to the acreage impacted.
 Action COS-4.2j: Habitat Mitigation Plan and Monitoring Plan. Development that would result in impacts to ESHA or significant biological resources shall include a Mitigation Plan and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan as a filing requirement for a Coastal Development Permit application. Mitigation Monitoring Plans shall be for a minimum of 5 years of monitoring to ensure success criteria is met.
 Action COS-4.3k: Monarch Butterfly Habitat Protection. The City shall cooperate with the California Department of Parks and Recreation to preserve and enhance the monarch butterfly habitat against significant disruption of habitat values and only uses or development dependent on and compatible with maintaining such resources shall be allowed within the habitat area and its buffer areas. Specific actions shall include but not be limited to:
a) No development, except as otherwise allowed by this policy shall be allowed within monarch butterfly habitat or habitat buffer,
b) If any tree is removed or lost due to disease or threat to life or property, it shall be replaced with appropriate species.
c) Development within the park adjacent to the butterfly habitat shall have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the area of development/impact to the habitat.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-26
d) The City shall pursue, with Grover Beach and the Union Pacific Railroad, mutual regulations to preserve the groves on the east side of Dolliver Street that supplement and support the habitat.
e) The City should request the California Department of Parks and Recreation to place appropriate signing and develop adequate visitor parking and restrooms for the Monarch Butterfly Reserve Grove. Public trails and access ways are considered resource-dependent uses and may be located within a monarch habitat area or its buffer; however, such features shall be sited to avoid or minimize impacts to the habitat. Interpretive signage is allowed within a monarch habitat area or its buffer, but it shall be designed to be visually unobtrusive.
 Policy COS-4.4: Oak Tree Protection. Native species of oak (e.g., Quercus agrifolia, Quercus chrysolepis) should be preserved within the City of Pismo Beach, both as an aesthetic resource benefiting the entire community and for their ecological value.  Action COS-4.4a: Oak Tree Protection Requirements and Mitigation. The City shall require the protection of oak trees when considering discretionary planning permits and see Zoning Code/Implementation Plan (IP) for accompanying standards and guidelines for protection of oak trees. Adverse impacts to and or removal of mature native trees for new development in a highly developed area shall be fully mitigated.
 Policy COS-4.5: Nesting and Foraging Habitat. The City shall ensure the protection of bird nesting habitat protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the long-term protection of breeding, roosting, and nesting habitat of bird species listed pursuant to the federal or California Endangered Species Acts, California bird species of special concern, and wading birds (such as herons or egrets) as well as owls or raptors
 Action COS-4.5a: Trimming and Removal of Trees. The City shall ensure that the trimming and/or removal of any trees that have been used for breeding and nesting by the above identified species within the past five (5) years, as determined by a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall be undertaken in compliance with all applicable codes and regulations of the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and shall be conducted under the parameters of a Tree Maintenance Program which shall be prepared and included as part of the GP/LCP’s Implementation Plan.
 Action COS-4.5b: Construction Near Nesting and Foraging Habitat. The City shall amend the Municipal code to include standards related to construction noise adjacent to nesting and foraging habitat.
 Action COS-4.5c: Tree Trimming and Removal. The City shall prepare Tree Maintenance Procedures for the trimming and/or removal of trees that directs when tree trimming or removal may occur and ensures that trees which provide habitat for sensitive bird species are preserved to the extent feasible.
 Policy COS-4.7: Riparian Habitat and Natural Drainage Protection. Protect riparian and natural drainage areas as these resources support a variety of species and are unique features in Pismo Beach.
 Action COS-4.7a: Water supply and flood control. Channelization, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to:

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-27
a) necessary water supply projects,
b) flood control projects were no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or
c) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
 Action COS-4.7b: Riparian Corridors. Development adjacent to streams or riparian corridors shall avoid removal of native vegetation; prevent erosion, sedimentation and runoff; provide for sufficient passage of native and anadromous fish; prevent wastewater discharges and entrapment; prevent groundwater depletion or substantial interference with surface and subsurface flows; and protect and re-establish natural vegetation buffers.  Action COS-4.7c: Drainage Channels. Drainage channels shall remain in a natural open space state with minimal or no use of concrete channels. Dredging, filling and grading within stream corridors shall be limited to activities necessary for flood control purposes, bridge construction, water supply projects, or laying of pipelines when no alternative route is feasible. Revegetation and restoration of the natural setting shall be required. Alteration of existing drainage patterns shall be prohibited unless special studies prove that the proposed alteration will not cause any adverse impacts down- stream or to other aspects of the environment. Prior to approval of any new development, a detailed analysis of surface water runoff patterns shall be undertaken to determine storm drain needs and identify mitigations for any with possible adverse environmental impacts. No runoff that will negatively affect the Pismo Marsh shall be permitted.
 Policy COS-4.8: Pismo Creek. Pismo Creek shall be retained in its natural state and protected from significant alterations.
 Action COS-4.8a: Streamside Protection Zone. There shall be a minimum streamside protection zone to conserve the environmentally sensitive habitats of the creek. This buffer zone shall be measured from the outer edge of the riparian vegetation or, where there is no riparian vegetation, from the top of the creek bank. The minimum width of the buffer shall be as follows:

West Bank 100 feet/Cypress northward to City limits
25 feet/Cypress to the ocean
East Bank 100 feet/U.S. 101 northward to City limits
50 feet/U.S. 101 to Dolliver Street
25 feet/Dolliver to the ocean
A lesser buffer may be permitted if: 1) the minimum widths set forth above would render a parcel inaccessible or unusable for the purpose designated in the land-use plan; or 2) there is a showing by an applicant through the resource assessment study identified in item "h" that a lesser buffer will not result in loss of, or adverse effects on, streamside vegetation or the biotic quality of the stream. Alternative mitigations shall be required where lesser buffers are authorized. No new construction or vegetation removal, except for normal maintenance, shall be allowed in the buffer zone with the exception of public roadways or bridges identified in the Circulation Element, paths, trails, fences, flood control structures, and other similar structures deemed not to adversely affect the creek.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-28
 Action COS-4.8b: Pismo Creek Regulations. New development proposed adjacent to Pismo Creek shall comply with the ESHA and/or wetland policies of this GP/LCP.  Action COS-4.8c: Open Space. The sandpit and channel where Pismo Creek enters the ocean and those portions of parcels located within the creek channel shall remain as open space and no structures or fill shall be permitted thereon.  Action COS-4.8d: Conservation Dedication. Any new development shall be required to dedicate as a condition of any discretionary approval, an easement for the protection of the streamside buffer area. In addition, new development shall provide access amenities adjacent to the creek for the City to use as a greenbelt and/or recreation corridor.  Action COS-4.8j: Financial Support. The City shall seek and secure funding to complete restoration projects to the Pismo Creek defined in the Pismo Creek/Edna Area Watershed Management Plan.
 Action COS-4.8e: Riparian Woodland. The City should protect and enhance the riparian woodland along Pismo Creek for the purpose of improving the scenic quality as well as its ecological value.
 Policy COS-4.9: Resource Protection Plan. A Resource Assessment and Protection Plan shall be required and approved concurrent with City action on projects located on parcels which have a portion within the streamside protection zone. The plan shall include appropriate measures to protect the creeks biological and visual aspects.
 Policy COS-4.10: Pismo Lake Protection. Pismo Lake shall be retained in its natural state and protected from significant alteration.
 Policy COS-4.11: Foothills. The coastal and upland foothills of Pismo Beach, located in the Freeway Foothills, Pismo Oaks, and Pismo Heights planning areas, shall be conserved and enhanced to provide valuable recreational and habitat resources.

These goals and policies and the associated implementation to limit habitat loss, maintain habitat integrity and connectivity, and protect special status species would minimize, and often avoid, impacts from potential direct and indirect effects to special status species and sensitive habitats.

Additionally, all development under the GP/LCP Update would be subject to the provisions of the various federal and State natural resources regulations (discussed in subsection 4.3.1(f), Regulatory Setting) and their respective permitting processes.

Policy COS-4.3, and the associated actions would require site-specific habitat and biological resources assessments to be prepared by a qualified biologist for development within or near the boundary of a defined ESHA. This policy includes specific language that would address avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of effects to special-status species and provides mitigation ratios for allowable impacts to wetlands, riparian habitats, or other habitats that support State or federally listed species, CDFW species of special concern, or CNPS listed plants. The requirement of biological surveys and compensatory mitigation for impacts would ensure that potential special-status species that could be impacted by future development would be identified and potential impacts would be reduced or avoided. Therefore, implementation of these policies and actions would avoid potential direct impacts to sensitive species identified in Appendix D.

While the policies above would prevent impacts to large tracts of open space that provides habitat for special status species, as with most urbanized environments, landscape features within the urbanized areas of the City, such as trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants, and parklands, could serve as temporary habitats for nesting migratory birds. Migratory bird species may use areas of the City for

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-29
nesting during the breeding season and are protected under the MBTA. Construction-related activities such as building demolition and/or relocation, grading, materials laydown, access, and infrastructure improvements, and building construction, could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory birds. The most identifiable potential direct impact to migratory species would involve the removal of vegetation, particularly trees and landscaping shrubs that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds.

Chapter 12.12 of the Pismo Beach Municipal Code outlines a comprehensive plan for the planting and maintenance of trees in, on, or within the public right-of-way, provides rules and regulations for the planting, care and maintenance of such trees, and defines landmark and specimen trees. This chapter was developed to limit the removal or significant trees within Pismo Beach and retain as many trees as possible. Impacts related to the removal of vegetation not covered under the ordinance could have adverse effects on nesting migratory species. However, GP/LCP Update Policy COS-4.5a would require that the City protect breeding, roosting and nesting bird habitat. Action COS-3.4a would ensure that any trimming or removal of trees used for breeding or nesting within the last five years, as determined by a qualified biologist, would be undertaken in with all applicable codes and regulations of CDFW, the USFWS and the MBTA, and shall be conducted under the parameters of a Tree Maintenance Program. Action COS-4.5b would amend the Pismo Beach Municipal code to include standards related to limiting construction noise adjacent to nesting and foraging habitat. Action COS-4.5c would require the City to prepare Tree Maintenance Procedures for the trimming or removal of trees that such that trees which provide habitat for sensitive bird species are preserved to the extent feasible. These policies and actions protect active nest sites from disruption during construction of development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, impacts to special-status species and their habitats would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS?
Threshold 3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Impact BIO-2 THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD RESULT IN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN RIPARIAN HABITAT, AND DIRECT PLACEMENT OF FILL IN WETLANDS. HOWEVER, WITH

COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GP/LCP UPDATE POLICIES POTENTIAL IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Sensitive natural communities in the City and its immediately surroundings include central maritime chaparral, central dune scrub, central foredunes, and coastal and valley freshwater marsh. These sensitive natural communities, as mapped by CDFW (2021a), are located within the City boundary in the Pismo Marsh Conservation Area, and outside of the City to the south in the Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area and in the hills north of the City. The Pismo Lake area is designated as Open Space in the GP/LCP Update. This land use designation would prevent substantial development of the habitat that these sensitive communities provide. The GP/LCP Update does not include changes to the Open Space land use designations and includes several policies providing for

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-30
the protection of ESHAs which includes these sensitive natural communities. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not facilitate permanent development within the sensitive natural communities designated by CDFW.

Wetlands in the City include estuarine and marine wetlands, estuarine and marine deepwater, freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, riverine, and freshwater ponds. Pismo Creek and Meadow Creek are major streams in the City, and the Pismo Lake and estuary are important coastal aquatic habitats. The Pacific Ocean occurs along the southwestern edge of the City. Known wetlands, riparian areas, salt marsh, estuary, shallow bay and other aquatic resources within current city limits are designated as ESHA, and policies in the GP/LCP Update outline conservation and setbacks from aquatic resource ESHAs, and prescribe mitigation for situations in which impacts are unavoidable.

The GP/LCP Update would facilitate infill development within existing urbanized areas of the City.

Because these areas are urbanized and currently developed, they are unlikely to contain jurisdictional wetlands or other surface waters and associated riparian vegetation zones. However, the infill development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would increase density in some areas, which could require upgraded utilities or stormwater drainage. The construction of these upgraded facilities could require work, including dredge or fill, within jurisdictional wetlands and streams and could require ground disturbance in riparian habitat associated with these wetlands and streams.

Detailed wetland delineations would be needed to determine the extent of any jurisdictional wetlands and other waters at specific locations and each agency is responsible for making a final determination on the extent of jurisdictional waters for a particular site.

The extent of jurisdictional waters, as well as project specific details and plans would be necessary to determine the acres of wetlands and stream channels that could be impacts from development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. Wetlands and waterways may be subject to USACE, RWQCB and/or CDFW jurisdiction(s), as well as subject to the Clean Water Act. However, Compliance with the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne, and California Fish and Game Code would be required for any project proposed under the GP/LCP Update. In addition, the following goals, policies, and actions from the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update listed below and Policies COS-3.1 through COS-3.4, and Policies COS-3.6 through COS-3.10 listed above, would reduce impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat through preservation and enhancement of these habitats.

Conservation and Open Space Element
 Policy COS-4.6: Wetland Protection. The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with the other applicable policies of the GP/LCP, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
a. New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities.
b. Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. c. In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-31
d. Incidental public service purposes including, but not limited to, burying cables and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines; e. Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas.
f. Restoration purposes; and
g. Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource-dependent activities.  Action COS-4.6a: Definition of Wetlands. Wetlands shall include lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. Wetlands, as detailed by Section 13577 (b)(l) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, also include land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats. Any areas that meet the above wetlands criteria are deemed wetlands and shall be accorded all of the protections provided for wetlands in the GP/LCP. An area shall be considered a wetland if it fits these Coastal Act and California Public Resources Code definitions, regardless of its quality; poorly functioning or degraded wetlands are afforded the same protection under the Coastal Act.  Action COS-4.6b: Wetland Protection. Any area determined to have previously been wetland shall not be deprived of protection, as required by the policies and provisions of the GP/LCP, on the basis that habitat has been illegally removed, filled, degraded, or that species of concern have been illegally eliminated.
 Action COS-4.6c: Biological Study/Wetland Delineation. Where a project site has the potential for wetlands to be present, the City shall require the submittal of a detailed biological study of the site, prepared by a qualified biologist, including a formal wetland delineation of all wetland areas on the project site. Wetland delineations shall be conducted according to the protocols developed by the Army Corp of Engineers. Wetland delineations involve surveying for three parameters; hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic plants. This policy incorporates the Coastal Commission’s one parameter definition for wetlands. That is, if a wetland delineation study finds evidence of hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology in the form of areas lacking hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuation of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate, then the area meets the definition of a Coastal Commission wetland.
 Action COS-4.6d: Wetland Buffers. Buffer areas shall be provided around wetlands to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human intrusion.

Buffers shall be of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland they are designed to protect. All wetland buffers shall be a minimum of 100-feet in width. A wetland buffer may be reduced only where it can be demonstrated that (1) the required buffer width is not possible due to site-specific constraints, and (2) the proposed narrower buffer would be sufficiently protective of the biological integrity of the wetland to

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-32
avoid significant adverse impacts to the wetland given the site-specific characteristics of the resource, and the type and intensity of disturbance. In such cases, the CDFW must be consulted and agree that a reduced buffer is appropriate and the City must find that the development could not be feasibly constructed without a reduced buffer.  Action COS-4.6e: Existing Development Within Wetlands Buffers. Existing development that was legally permitted and constructed prior to certification of this policy that is located within the required buffers identified in Action 3.2d, Existing Development Within ESHA Buffers, are allowed to be maintained or remodeled unless the remodel or maintenance replaces 50% or more of the structure and the existing development does not increase the encroachment into the required setback/buffer from the wetland. Any expansion or addition to existing development shall not increase the nonconformity and conform to the required setback.
 Action COS-4.6f: Wetlands Restoration and Monitoring. All preferred restoration programs should remove fill from a formerly productive wetland or estuary that is now biologically unproductive dry land. Restoration programs should incorporate sea level rise into the planning of any coastal wetland habitat projects. Since restoration projects necessarily involve many uncertainties, restoration should precede the diking or filling project. When a restoration project is mitigation for a new development project, a Restoration and Monitoring Plan shall be included with the CDP application. A Restoration Monitoring Plan shall include a minimum of 5 years monitoring to ensure success criteria are met. The CDP shall be conditioned to require that restoration will occur prior to, or simultaneously with project construction.

The GP/LCP policies and actions listed above would require wetland delineations prior to new development on sites with potential wetlands. Additionally, GP/LCP Update goals, policies, and actions would require preservation of wetland and riparian habitat, compliance with State and federal regulations, and prohibition of specific development near riparian corridors. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not result in significant adverse effects on riparian areas and other sensitive natural communities, drainages, wetlands and other aquatic habitats and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact BIO-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP COULD RESULT IN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN STREAMS AND ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN ZONES THAT SERVE AS WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS. HOWEVER,

WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF GP/LCP UPDATE POLICIES PRESERVING STREAMS, WETLANDS, AND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, AS WELL AS OPEN SPACE, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The majority of Pismo Beach is developed and urbanized and does not provide for wildlife movement corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. Wildlife movement corridors in Pismo Beach are present in the Pismo Beach coastal zone and include drainages and other topographic features that facilitate movement, and contiguous areas of natural vegetation, including the coastal dunes and

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-33
the hills in Pismo Preserve. Perennial streams, wetlands, shallow bays and estuaries, including Pismo Creek and Pismo Marsh, provide potential fish and other aquatic wildlife movement habitat. The GP/LCP Update designates the undeveloped marsh and wetlands at the southern boundary of the City as well as the chaparral dominated area at the northwestern extent of the City as Open Space.

This land use designation would prevent substantial development of the habitat that these sensitive communities provide. The GP/LCP Update does not include changes to existing Open Space land use designations, including along creeks and waterways in the City. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not facilitate permanent development within these wildlife movement corridors.

As described above, infill development could require construction of upgraded utilities and infrastructure, which could require temporary work in stream corridors. However, the GP/LCP Update contains Action COS-4.8d which requires any new development along Pismo Creek to dedicate conservation easements for the protection of the streamside buffer area. GP/LCP Update Policies COS-4.6 and COS-4.7, listed above, supports restoration of wetlands and streams, which would restore wildlife movement corridors provided by streams following construction activities within these areas. Additionally, Goal COS-4 in the GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element, listed below, along with the policies listed above under Impacts BIO-1 and BIO-2 would protect conservation areas including migratory corridors.

Goal COS-4: A community that provides and protects a variety of conservation areas such as the ocean and beaches, bluffs, dunes, foothills, marshes, creeks, and wetlands that act as suitable coastal and inland habitat, migratory corridors, and ecologically valuable topography.

Considering that the GP/LCP Update would not facilitate development in open space areas, including stream corridors, and that it contains policies to reduce impacts to stream corridors and protect wildlife movement corridors, native wildlife nursery sites, and open space, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact BIO-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/ LCP UPDATE MAY RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF TREES. HOWEVER, THE GP/LCP POLICIES REQUIRE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY’S TREE ORDINANCE. WITH ADHERENCE TO THE TREE ORDINANCE, AS WELL AS OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would occur in already developed areas of the City, largely as either infill or redevelopment. However, there are street trees and other trees in these areas that could be removed or substantially pruned for construction of the development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. Development would be subject to all applicable local policies and regulations related to the protection of important biological resources. Specifically, development under the GP/LCP Update would be required to comply with the Pismo Beach Municipal Code Chapter 12.12 – City Tree Regulations. The ordinance outlines a comprehensive plan for the planting and maintenance of trees in, on, or within the public right-of-way, provides rules and regulations for the planting, care and maintenance of such trees, and defines landmark and specimen trees. The ordinance requires a tree removal application review and approval of a tree removal permit by the

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-34
Director of Public Works. In addition to requiring tree removal permits, the ordinance also requires measures to protect existing trees during project construction.

Policies and actions in the GP/LCP Update, listed under Impact BIO-1 above, would also minimize impacts to the City’s trees. Action LU-2.2d, Special Tree Preservation, designates several types of trees that would be preserved including oak trees, Monterey pines, Monterey cypress, eucalyptus, monkey trees, and sycamores. Policy COS-4.4, Oak Tree Protection, requires that native species of oak be preserved within the City and requires mitigation for the removal or trimming of these trees.

Additionally, the goals, policies, and actions listed under Impacts BIO-1 and BIO-2 would ensure that buildout in the City under the GP/LCP Update occurs in a manner that supports Zoning Ordinance Chapter 17.16.050, intended to protect and preserve ESHA. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not conflict with applicable local policies and regulations, and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact BIO-5 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH AN

ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAT SIGNIFICANT.

There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plans within the City limits (CDFW 2021b; USFWS 2021d). One HCP is proposed and is currently undergoing environmental review for the Oceano Dunes District. This HCP would include the California Department of Parks and Recreation managed Pismo State Beach and Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area. The HCP area would overlap with the southern extent of the City in the dunes habitat of the Pismo State Beach and Pismo Lake. Upon approval, the HCP would serve as a comprehensive habitat conservation plan, pursuant to Section (a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA. The primary intent of the HCP is to provide for the conservation of a range of plants and animals and in return, provide take coverage and mitigation for covered projects throughout the Oceano Dunes District to avoid the cost and delays of mitigating biological impacts on a project-by-project basis. It would allow the incidental take (for development purposes) of species and their habitat from development.

The areas covered under the proposed HCP are also designated as Open Space and ESHAs in the GP/LCP Update. The GP/LCP Update does not include changes to the Open Space land use designations and includes several Policies providing for the protection of ESHAs. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not facilitate permanent development within the proposed HCP plan area.

The proposed GP/LCP Update would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.3-35
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Biological resources impacts as described above are related to the potential for direct and indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities, special-status species, regulated waterways and wetlands, sensitive habitat and mature native trees, and wildlife movement corridors.

Implementation of the land use development patterns under the GP/LCP Update could result in impacts on special-status species, riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural communities, as well as wildlife movement in the City, and contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources within the greater cumulative impact area (adjacent communities, including San Luis Obispo county). Due to the potential direct and indirect impacts that may occur as a result of the GP/LCP Update, the proposed GP/LCP Update could contribute to this impact.

However, goals and policies in the GP/LCP Update would conserve existing natural resource and limit impacts on special status-species. GP/LCP Update goals and policies set requirements for surveys and actions to be taken if biological resources have potential to be impacted by development under the GP/LCP Update. These goals and policies would reduce impacts to sensitive species and habitats along the bay shore, marsh, and other sensitive habitats of Pismo Beach and ensure that development would not result in reductions in local population size, habitat fragmentation, or lower reproductive success by promoting conservation and preservation of the EHSAs. Furthermore, impacts on biological resources associated with the individual development projects would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, buildout of the GP/LCP Update would have incremental contribution to cumulative impacts associated with biological resources but the impacts to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.3-36

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1

4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The analysis in this section considers potential impacts to archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources. This section includes a brief summary of cultural resources background information and a review of known archaeological, built environment historical, and tribal cultural resources as well as potential impacts to these resources as a result of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update.

4.4.1 Setting
a. Prehistoric Background
Pismo Beach is located in the Central Coast archaeological region. The Central Coast is defined as extending from south of San Francisco Bay to the northern edge of the Southern California Bight (Jones et al. 2007). The prehistoric cultural chronology for the Central Coast can be generally divided into six periods: Paleo-Indian (ca. 10,000–8,000 B.C.), Millingstone/Early Archaic (8,000- 3,500 B.C.), Early (3,500-600 B.C.), Middle (600 B.C.-A.D. 1000), Middle-Late Transition (A.D. 1000-A.D. 1250), and Late (A.D. 1250-contact [ca. A.D. 1769]). These periods are described below.

Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 10,000–8,000 B.C.)
Recent data from Paleo-Indian sites in Southern California indicate that the economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering, with a major emphasis on aquatic resources in many coastal areas and on Pleistocene lake shores in eastern California. Although few Clovis-like or Folsom-like fluted point arrowheads have been found in Southern California, it is generally considered that the emphasis on hunting may have been greater during the Paleo-Indian period than in later periods (Mills et al. 2005; Jones et al. 2007).

Millingstone/Early Archaic Period (8,000- 3,500 B.C.)
The Millingstone1 period is characterized by an ecological adaptation to collecting suggested by the appearance and abundance of well-made milling implements. Millingstones occur in large numbers for the first time in the region’s archaeological record, and are even more numerous near the end of this period. Aside from millingstones, typical artifacts during this period include crude core and cobblecore tools, flake tools, large side-notched projectile points, and pitted stones (Jones et al. 2007).

Early Period (3,500-600 B.C.)
An extensive series of shoreline midden 2 deposits are within the Central Coast region dating to the Early period, signifying an increase in occupation of the open coast (Jones 1995; Jones and Waugh 1995, 1997). Sites dating to this period are marked by large lithic3 artifact assemblages, which include Central Coast Stemmed Series and side-notched projectile points. The material culture recovered from Early period sites within the Central Coast region provides evidence for continued exploitation of inland plant and coastal marine resources. Artifacts include milling slabs and handstones, as well as mortars and pestles, which were used for processing a variety of plant

1 Millingstones are stone tools used for grinding grounds, seeds, plants, or other materials 2 A midden is a dump site for domestic waste
3 A lithic artifact is a rock or stone artifact

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-2
resources. Bipointed bone gorge hooks were used for fishing. Shell beads and obsidian are hallmarks of the trade and exchange networks of the Central and Southern California coasts. The archaeological record indicates a substantial increase in the abundance of obsidian at Early period sites in the Monterey Bay and San Luis Obispo areas (Jones and Waugh 1997).

Middle Period (600 B.C.-A.D. 1000)
A pronounced trend toward greater adaptation to regional or local resources occurred during the Middle period. For example, the remains of fish, land mammals, and sea mammals are increasingly abundant and diverse in archaeological deposits along the coast. Related chipped stone tools suitable for hunting were more abundant and diversified, and shell fishhooks became part of the toolkit during this period. Larger knives, a variety of flake scrapers, and drill-like implements are common during this period. Projectile points include large side-notched, stemmed, and lanceolate or leafshaped forms. Bone tools, including awls, are more numerous than in the preceding period, and the use of asphaltum adhesive became common. Sites from this period show a retention of stemmed points and the disappearance of the larger side-notched points (Jones and Klar 2007; Jones et al. 2007).

Middle-Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000-A.D. 1250)
The Middle-Late Transition period is marked by relative instability and change, with major changes in diet, settlement patterns, and interregional exchange. The relatively ubiquitous Middle period shell midden sites found along the Central Coast were abandoned by the end of the Middle-Late Transition period, so most Transition period and Late period sites were first occupied during those periods (Jones and Ferneau 2002). One site (Site SLO-239) in the County has been tentatively dated to the Middle-Late Transition period and contains the only residential feature, a circular house floor, dating to this time period (Jones et al. 2007; Mikkelsen et al. 2000).

Late Period (A.D. 1250-contact [ca. A.D. 1769])
Late period sites are marked by small, finely worked projectile points, such as desert side-notched and cottonwood points, as well as temporally diagnostic shell beads. The small projectile points are associated with bow and arrow technology and indicate influence from the Takic migration from the deserts into Southern California. Common artifacts identified at Late period sites include bifacial bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, lipped and cupped Olivella shell beads, and steatite 4 disk beads. The presence of beads and bead drills suggest that low-level bead production was widespread throughout the Central Coast region (Jones et al. 2007). b. Ethnographic Background
The City is within the Chumash ethnographic territory. The Chumash were a diverse Native American population living in settlements along the California coast from Malibu Creek in the south to Estero Bay in the north, and from Tejon Pass, Lake Casitas and the Cuyama River inland to the islands of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz. The boundaries for the Chumash territory is currently being debated. The ethnographic territory of the Chumash was placed by Kroeber (1925) a few miles north of what is now San Luis Obispo and extending south to Malibu Canyon. The boundary of the Northern Chumash traditional territory has been contested and, as a result, numerous territorial boundaries have been suggested (Milliken and Johnson 2005). Recent work by

4 A mineral talc, also known as soapstone.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
Milliken and Johnson based on mission records and summarizing previous work proposed the Salinan-Chumash interface to be a few miles south of the Mission San Miguel, between the mission and San Marcos Creek. The Chumash spoke six languages, Obispeño being associated with the Northern Chumash represented in the City.

Groups neighboring the Chumash included the Salinan to the north, the Southern Valley Yokuts and Tataviam to the east, and the Gabrielino (Tongva) to the south. Chumash place names in the project vicinity include Pismu (Pismo Beach), Tematatimi (along Los Berros Creek), and Tilhini (near San Luis Obispo) (Greenwood 1978). Only a general outline of the lifeways of the Obispeño Chumash is known based on the little ethnographic information available (Greenwood 1978).

Although their language was closer to Southern Chumash groups, the material culture and lifeways of the Northern Chumash appear to have been more similar to their northern neighbors, the Salinan. Accordingly, their populations in this area are thought to have been substantially lower than in the Santa Barbara Channel area, their villages smaller, and their livelihood less based on intensive use of marine fisheries (Glassow, Wilcoxen, and Erlandson 1988; Greenwood 1978).

Permanent Chumash villages included hemispherical dwellings arranged in close groups, with the chief having the largest for social obligations (Brown 2001). Each Chumash village had a formal cemetery marked by tall painted poles and often with a defined entrance area (Gamble, Walker, and Russell 2001). Archaeological studies have identified separate sections for elite versus commoner families within the cemetery grounds (King 1969).

The acorn was a dietary staple for the mainland Chumash, though its dominance varied by coastal or inland location. Chumash diet also included cattail roots, fruits and pads from cactus, and bulbs and tubers of plants such as amole (Miller 1988). On the coast, the wooden plank canoe (tomol) was employed in the pursuit of marine mammals and fish. The tomol not only facilitated marine resource procurement but also facilitated an active trade network maintained by frequent crossings between the mainland and the Channel Islands.

Chumash populations were decimated by the effects of European colonization and missionization (Johnson 1987). Traditional lifeways largely gave way to laborer jobs on ranches and farms in the Mexican and early American periods. Today, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is the only federally recognized Chumash tribe, though many people of Chumash descent continue to live throughout their traditional territory.
c. Historical Background
Post-European contact history for the State of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish period (1769–1822), the Mexican period (1822–1848), and the American period (1848– present). The Juan Rodrigues Cabrillo expedition reached the San Luis Obispo region in 1542, possibly landed in Morro Bay, and sailed as far north as San Francisco Bay. For more than 200 years, other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta (upper) California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements.

Spanish Period (1769–1822)
The earliest detailed descriptions of the area come from members of Gaspar de Portolá’s land expedition, which passed through the region in 1769. Early travelers in the Central Coast region reported seeing no large Native American villages like those noted in the Santa Barbara Channel area. Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Father Junípero Serra established the first Spanish settlement in Alta California at Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769. This was the first of 21 missions

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-4
erected by the Spanish between 1769 and 1823. Portolá continued north, passing through the project vicinity and reaching San Francisco Bay in 1769. Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772, the fifth of 21 missions established by the Spanish in Alta California.

Mexican Period (1822–1848)
The Mexican period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican Revolution (1810-1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. This period was an era of extensive interior land grant development and exploration by American fur trappers west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The California missions declined in power and were ultimately secularized in 1834.

Governor Pío Pico and his predecessors made more than 600 rancho grants between 1833 and 1846, putting most of the State’s lands into private ownership for the first time. The secularization of the missions during the Mexican period resulted in approximately 500,000 acres of former mission lands being granted to Mexican citizens in San Luis Obispo County.

American Period (1848–present)
The American period began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for the conquered territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Settlement of Southern California continued to increase during the early American period. Many ranchos in the County were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans, and most were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns. Rancho San Bernardo was patented to Vincent Canet in 1865, and a patent was issued for Rancho Moro y Cayucos to James McKinley in 1878. The County of San Luis Obispo was founded in 1850. Roads were constructed throughout the County in the 1870s, primarily by Chinese laborers, leading to increased mobility throughout the County. In 1872, Captain John Harford began construction on the Pacific Coast Railway. During the 1920s, numerous housing developments were carved out of ranches and farms. In the early twentieth century Port Harford was renamed Port San Luis and oil from the Santa Maria and Taft-Coalinga fields was shipped beginning in 1907 and 1913, respectively. The California Polytechnic School was established in 1901 as a high school and eventually became California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). The County’s agriculture and ranching production supplied US troops during World War I and helped its residents weather the Great Depression of the 1930s. At the start of World War II, the US War Department transferred nearly 100,000 military personnel to bases at Morro Bay, Camp San Luis, Camp Roberts, and Cambria.
d. Previously Identified Cultural Resources
Evidence of the culture and occupations by the Chumash may be found at numerous sites in the vicinity of Pismo Beach. In addition, an important archaeological site directly adjacent to Francis Judkins Junior High School, on Lucia Mar School District Property, exists in the Pismo Heights planning area.

There is one officially designated historic building, also considered a point of interest, in Pismo Beach, listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO): the John Price House. The Price Historical Park was formed and dedicated to the City and a private non-profit group was established to care for the Price House and grounds. The Price House Park contains many historical components, including the Meherin House and the Ortega-Price Adobes. The Meherin House was home to the daughter of John Price, Mary Anne Price, and her large family. The City maintains an updated classified record of archaeological sites in the

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5
planning area. However, one known archaeological site is located in the Pismo Heights planning area.

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Cultural resources, including built environment and archaeological resources, may be designated as historic by National, State, or local authorities. In order for a resource to qualify for listing in the NRHP, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or as a locally significant resource, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The resource must also retain sufficient historic integrity, defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service [NPS] 1990). Explanations of these criteria are included in the regulatory setting discussions that follow.
a. State Regulations
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CRHR helps government agencies identify, evaluate, and protect California’s historical resources, and indicates which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The CRHR is administered through SHPO that is part of the California State Parks system.

A cultural resource is evaluated under four CRHR criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level in accordance with one or more of the following criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3):

It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of California’s history and cultural heritage;
It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource according to SHPO publications. The CRHR also requires a resource to possess integrity, which is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.

Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” Archaeological resources can sometimes qualify as “historical resources” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][1]).

According to CEQA, all buildings constructed over 50 years ago and that possess architectural or historical significance may be considered potential historical resources. Most resources must meet the 50-year threshold for historic significance. However, resources less than 50 years in age may be eligible for listing on the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand their historical importance.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-6
In addition, if a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Impacts to significant cultural resources that affect the characteristics of any resource that qualify it for the NRHP or adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. These impacts could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (b)(1), 2000). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).

Codes Governing Human Remains
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. The disposition of human remains is governed by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98, and falls within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal.

Senate Bill 18
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 18 [SB 18]) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the NAHC. As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.”

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
Assembly Bill 52
California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted in July 2015 and expanded CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” Assembly Bill 52 states that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074(a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and meets either of the following criteria:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
b. Local Regulations
Pismo Beach Municipal Code
The Pismo Beach Municipal Code Section 17.24.020 sets property development and use standards related to archaeological and historical resources. Surface surveys are required where development is proposed on areas identified as archaeologically sensitive, per Figures 3-1 and 3-2 of the Municipal Code, when applying for a land use permit. The survey shall be performed by a qualified archeologist and include an evaluation of the likely presence of cultural resources, their significance, and recommendations for all appropriate mitigation measures for the project. Pismo Beach Municipal Code Section 17.24.020(B) includes construction practices for unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during grading, excavation, or other construction activities. If archaeological resources are discovered all construction activities shall cease and the City shall be notified so that a qualified archaeologist may evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations for disposition, mitigation, and/or salvage.

4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
AB 52 and SB 18 Consultation
In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18, the City of Pismo Beach notified the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, Chumash Council of Bakersfield, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation,

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-8
Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, and the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini Northern Chumash Tribe of the GP/LCP Update and invited them to participate in consultation. The City prepared and mailed letters and a draft copy of the GP/LCP Update in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52 on May 8 and November 6, 2020. None of the tribes contacted responded to requests for consultation.

Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the GP/LCP Update may have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources or tribal cultural resources if it would do any of the following:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 The significance of a cultural resource and, subsequently, the significance of any impact are determined by consideration of whether that resource can increase our knowledge of the past. The determining factors are site content and degree of preservation. A finding of archaeological significance follows the criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological Resources) states:
 (3) […] Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852).
 (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1(k)), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1(g)) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) and 5024.1.
 (b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Historical resources are “significantly” affected if there is demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its surroundings. Generally, impacts to historical resources can be mitigated to below a level of significance by following the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Guidelines Section 15064.6(b)). In some circumstances, documentation of a historical resource by way of historic narrative photographs or architectural drawings will not mitigate the impact of demolition below the level of significance (Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(2)). Preservation in place is the preferred form of mitigation for archaeological resources as it retains the relationship between artifact and context, and may avoid conflicts with groups associated with the site (Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(A)). If an archaeological resource does not meet either the historic resource or the more specific “unique archaeological resource” definition, impacts do not need to be mitigated (Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)). Where the significance of a site is unknown, it is presumed to be significant for the purpose of the EIR investigation.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
IMPACT CR-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT HISTORICAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICABLE GP/LCP UPDATE ACTIONS, STATE AND FEDERAL

REGULATIONS, AND THE PISMO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD MINIMIZE OR AVOID POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO HISTORICAL RESOURCES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the GP/LCP Update, including future development activities facilitated by the GP/LCP Update, would have a significant impact on historical resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Historical resources include properties eligible for listing on the NRHP, the CRHR, or the local register of historical resources. In addition, as explained in Section 15064.5, “[s]ubstantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Although there are no specific development projects associated with the GP/LCP Update, implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update would guide development in the planning area though the year 2040. Development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update could result in adverse effects to known or unknown historic resources.

Goals, policies, and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update that are applicable to historical resources in Pismo Beach include:

Goal COS-5: A community that celebrates and protects its historical, tribal cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources.
 Policy COS-5.1: Historical Resources. Preserve, protect, and make accessible sites of historical significance, where feasible.
 Action COS-5.1a: CEQA Determination. As part of the CEQA review process, the City shall require a professional, qualified historian to conduct a literature search and/or survey for any project that entails demolition or modification of an existing structure that is more than 50 years old. Sites of statewide or national significance shall be nominated for inclusion in the Registry of California Historic Landmarks or National Historic Landmark Program.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-10
 Action COS-5.1b: Historic Building Guidelines. Require projects involving modification or rehabilitation of structures that may be of historical value to incorporate the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
 Action COS-5.1c: Protect Landmarks. Ensure that listed landmarks and cultural resources identified by ordinance are not demolished without notice and hearing.  Action COS-5.1d: Historic Demolition. Require projects involving demolition of an existing structure that may be of historical value to consult with local museums or cultural societies and incorporate mitigation, such as photo documentation, collection of oral histories, and physical or digital model, as necessary.
 Action COS-5.1e: Resources Inventory. The City shall create, maintain and periodically update Pismo Beach’s inventory of historic properties for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Pismo Beach. Maintain a liaison between State Historic Preservation Officer and the City relative to cultural/historic structures and properties to advise and assist the City, as appropriate, in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities.
 Action COS-5.1f: Seek Funding. Continue to seek funding that can be used to further the City’s historic preservation goals and policies.
 Policy COS-5.2: Cultural Resources. Protect cultural resources, including historical and archaeological features, in the Coastal Zone.
 Action COS-5.2e: Archaeology – Historic Sites Overlay Zone. Continue to implement and designate new areas as the Archaeology – Historic Sites Overlay Zone. The archaeology – Historic Sites Overlay Zone is intended to preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas, structures and other sites which have significant, historical, archaeological or cultural importance and provide for the designation of areas which may be of unique value for scientific or educational purposes.

Goals, policies, and actions included in the Conservation and Open Space Element are intended to preserve and protect site-specific historic resources. Additionally, future development under the GP/LCP Update would be subject to the provisions of applicable federal and State historic resource regulations, as well as the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.24.020 (discussed in subsection 4.4.2(b), Regulatory Setting). 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 historic resources throughout the City. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
IMPACT CR-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT UNIQUE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPLEMENTATION OF APPLICABLE GP/LCP UPDATE GOALS, STATE

AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AND THE PISMO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD MINIMIZE OR AVOID POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Effects on archaeological resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed ground-disturbing activity. Ground-disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update have the potential to damage or destroy previously unknown archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. As shown in the City’s map of Archaeologically Sensitive Areas, archeologically sensitive areas are located throughout the City, including in the following planning areas: Sunset Palisades/The Bluffs/South Palisades, North Spyglass/Spyglass, southern portion of the Shell Beach/Dinosaur Caves, Motel, southern portion of Pismo Heights, Downtown Core, Oak Park Heights, and Pismo Creek/Pismo Heights. Potential impacts to archaeological resources are most likely to occur in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses, have not been studied through a cultural resource investigation, or when excavation extends to new depths.

Consequently, damage to or destruction of previously-unknown sub-surface cultural resources could occur as a result of development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update.

Goals, policies, and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update that are applicable to historical resources in Pismo Beach include:

Goal COS-5: A community that celebrates and protects its historical, tribal cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources.
 Policy COS-5.2: Cultural Resources. Protect cultural resources, including historical and archaeological in the Coastal Zone.
 Action COS-5.2a: Native American Consultation. As part of the CEQA process for all new discretionary projects, the City will conduct consultations with any federally-recognized California Tribal government listed on the most recent notice of the United States Federal Register, and/or any non-federally recognized California Tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission that identifies as native to the Pismo Beach area, including the Chumash, in accordance with state law. Native American tribal groups with cultural affiliation to the project site area as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the pre-development plan as required by AB52 (2014). Archaeologists and representatives from Native American tribal groups shall provide monitoring during grading/excavation and construction activities of any approved development that has the potential to adversely impact any on-site significant cultural resources, based on the results of a Phase 1 cultural assessment.
 Action COS-5.2b: Chumash Cultural Resources Preservation. The coastal Chumash are the dominant archaeological group in Pismo Beach. Appropriate measures for Chumash Cultural Resources Preservation shall be provided with future development of private and public property, including California Environmental Quality Act compliance and meaningful consultation with local Chumash groups, as noted on the Native American Heritage

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-12
Commission’s “California Tribal Consultation List.” Archaeological studies shall be performed by members of the Register of Professional Archaeologists and should follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation.  Action COS-5.2c: Protect Archaeological and Paleontological Resources. The City shall have available a map that identifies the possible location of archaeological resources. As part of the CEQA process for all new discretionary projects, all known or potential archaeological resources shall be fully investigated by a qualified archaeologist recognized by the State Historic Preservation Office. While most sites are currently developed, appropriate protections shall be established to avoid impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources with new development, with part of the review process including:
a) Locations within the City known to have a high probability of occurrence of archaeological sites shall be zoned in the Archaeology-Historic Sites overlay district. b) Specific recommendations prepared by the archaeologist shall be incorporated into project approval including: avoidance of portions of sites containing resources, minimizing the impacts of the development on the archaeological resources, preserving a full archaeological record, and/or partial site dedication, and providing a native American monitor on site to observe excavations in locations where there is a possibility of discovery of human remains. In situ preservation and avoidance are the preferred alternative over recovery and/or relocation in the protection of paleontological and archaeological resources. When in situ preservation or site capping is not feasible, recovery and/or relocation may be considered.
 Action COS-5.2d: Mitigation Plan. Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required pursuant to Section 30244 of the Coastal Act. Require that a mitigation plan, adequate to protect the archaeological resource and prepared by a qualified archaeologist, be submitted for review and, if approved, be implemented as part of the project.
 Action COS-5.2e: Archaeology – Historic Sites Overlay Zone. Continue to implement and designate new areas as the Archaeology – Historic Sites Overlay Zone. The archaeology – Historic Sites Overlay Zone is intended to preserve, protect and maintain land and water areas, structures and other sites which have significant, historical, archaeological or cultural importance and provide for the designation of areas which may be of unique value for scientific or educational purposes.
 Action COS-5.2f: Construction Suspension. Should archaeological resources be disclosed during any construction activity, all activity that could damage or destroy the resources shall be suspended until a qualified archaeologist has examined the site. Construction shall not resume until mitigation measures have been developed and carried out to address the impacts of the project on these resources.
 Action COS-5.2g: Confidentiality of Archaeological Sites. The City shall, within its power, maintain confidentiality regarding the locations of archaeological and paleontological sites in order to preserve and protect these resources from vandalism and the unauthorized removal of artifacts.
 Action COS-5.2h: Protect and Preserve Artifacts. Ensure the protection and preservation of artifacts in those areas already identified as containing archaeological remains and require that all sites with potential resources likely to be disturbed by a proposed project be analyzed by a qualified archaeologist with local expertise.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13
These goals, policies, and actions are intended to preserve and protect site-specific historic and cultural resources. Additionally, future development under the GP/LCP Update would be subject to the provisions of applicable federal and State cultural resource regulations, as well as the City’s Municipal Code (discussed in subsection 4.4.2(b), Regulatory Setting). Individual projects facilitated under the GP/LCP Update would be required to implement actions included in the GP/LCP to reduce impacts to archaeological resources, as well as adhere to state, federal, and local regulations, including Section 17.24.020 of the Pismo Beach Municipal Code, which requires archaeological surveys for new development with mitigation, if necessary. Compliance with GP/LCP Update and applicable regulations would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
IMPACT CR-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ADVERSELY

AFFECT PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN HUMAN BURIALS, BUT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archaeological archeological contexts. The potential exists for these resources to be present in areas where development has not yet occurred. Excavation during construction activities in the planning area would have the potential to disturb these resources, including Native American burials.

Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, are subject to specific provisions for treatment in PRC Section 5097. The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations prohibit interfering with human burial remains; protect human remains from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction; and establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the NAHC to resolve any related disputes. In addition, Action COS-4.2i of the GP/LCP Update, listed below, states that human remains discovered during implementing of public and private projects should be fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protect and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.  Action COS-5.2i: Human Remains. Treat with respect and dignity any human remains discovered during implementation of public and private projects within the City and fully comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and other appropriate laws.

All development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be required to adhere to existing regulations regarding the treatment of human remains. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-14
Threshold 4: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Threshold 5: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
IMPACT CR-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE MAY INVOLVE EXCAVATION, WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS ON TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Effects on tribal cultural resources can only be known once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on the individual project site conditions, and the characteristics of the proposed activity, including but not limited to the level of ground disturbance associated with construction activities. Although the current SB 18 and AB 52 consultation for this document did not identify any specific tribal cultural resources within the City, new tribal cultural resources may be identified or established during implementation of the GP/LCP Update which is expected to occur over many years. Therefore, as specific projects are proposed, consultation with tribes under AB 52 would occur to determine if any tribal cultural resources may be impacted by specific projects. If tribal cultural resources are identified during AB 52 consultation, compliance with AB 52 on a project by project basis, as required, would ensure that development under the proposed GP/LCP Update does not have a detrimental effect on tribal cultural resources.

Goals, policies, and actions in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update that are applicable to tribal cultural resources in Pismo Beach include:

Goal COS-5: A community that celebrates and protects its historical, tribal cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources.
 Policy COS-5.2: Cultural Resources. Protect cultural resources, including historical and archaeological features, in the Coastal Zone.
 Action COS-5.2a: Native American Consultation. As part of the CEQA process for all new development projects, the City will conduct consultations with any federally-recognized California Tribal government listed on the most recent notice of the United States Federal Register, and/or any non-federally recognized California Tribe listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the California Native American Heritage Commission that identifies as native to the Pismo Beach area, including the Chumash, in accordance with state law. Native American tribal groups with cultural affiliation to the project site area as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the pre-development plan as required by AB52 (2014). Archaeologists and representatives from Native American tribal groups shall provide monitoring during grading/excavation and construction activities of any approved development that has the potential to adversely impact any on-site significant cultural resources, based on the results of a Phase 1 cultural assessment.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.4-15
 Action COS-5.2b: Chumash Cultural Resources Preservation. The coastal Chumash are the dominant archaeological group in Pismo Beach. Appropriate measures for Chumash Cultural Resources Preservation shall be provided with future development of private and public property, including California Environmental Quality Act compliance and meaningful consultation with local Chumash groups, as noted on the Native American Heritage Commission’s “California Tribal Consultation List.” Archaeological studies shall be performed by members of the Register of Professional Archaeologists and should follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation.

Action COS-5.2a of the GP/LCP requires all new discretionary projects in the City to conduct tribal consultations as part of the CEQA process. Action COS-5.2b requires consultation and appropriate protection of coastal Chumash resources for future development projects. With implementation of state regulations and actions included in the GP/LCP Update, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Development in the San Luis Obispo County region (the cumulative impact analysis area) would increase under buildout of the GP/LCP Update. The increase in growth in previously undisturbed areas would contribute to regional impacts on existing and previously undisturbed and undiscovered historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of the GP/LCP Update goals, policies, and actions discussed in Impacts CR-1, CR-2, and CR-4 are intended to provide a plan for developing project-level mitigation necessary to ensure protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources during future development in the planning area. Additionally, future development under the GP/LCP Update would be subject to the provisions of applicable federal, State, and local cultural resource regulations (discussed in subsection 4.4.2, Regulatory Setting).

Compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of GP/LCP Update goals and policies would minimize cumulative impacts to cultural resources, and includes policy language and actions to address potential impacts to cultural resources on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, cumulative impacts to such resources would be less than significant.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.4-16

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1

4.5 Energy
This section discusses the potential energy impacts of the City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update. This analysis follows the guidance for evaluation of energy impacts contained in Appendix F and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The physical environmental impacts associated with the generation of electricity and burning of fuels have been accounted for in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change.

4.5.1 Setting
Energy use relates directly to environmental quality because energy use can adversely affect air quality and can generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to climate change. Fossil fuels are burned to create electricity that powers residences, heats and cools buildings, and powers vehicles. Transportation energy use is dependent on the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public transportation; the different travel modes such as auto, carpool, and public transit; and the miles traveled using these modes. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy.
a. Energy Supply
Petroleum
California is one of the top producers of petroleum in the nation with drilling operations occurring throughout the state but concentrated primarily in Kern and Los Angeles counties. A network of crude oil pipelines connects production areas to oil refineries in the Los Angeles area, the San Francisco Bay area, and the Central Valley. California oil refineries also process Alaskan and foreign crude oil received at ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the San Francisco Bay area (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2021a). According to the United States Energy Information Administration, California’s field production of crude oil totaled 161.5 million barrels in 2019 (United States Energy Information Administration 2021a).

Petroleum Infrastructure in the City
There are six gasoline stations but no petroleum refineries in the city (GasBuddy 2021). According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), there are eight plugged dry hole wells in Pismo Beach, all of which are located north of the U.S. 101, east of Price Canyon Road, and west of Oak Park Boulevard (DOGGR 2021). No operational oil or gas extraction infrastructure occurs within or adjacent to the city.

Alternative Fuel
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. Their use is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans, such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Senate Bill (SB) 32. Alternative vehicle fuels include hydrogen, biodiesel, and electricity.

Currently, 45 hydrogen and nine biodiesel refueling stations are located in California, but none are located in the City (United States Department of Energy 2021). There are approximately 49 electric vehicle charging stations in Pismo Beach (PlugShare 2021).

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-2
Electricity
In 2019, California’s in-state electricity generation totaled 200,475 megawatts (CEC 2021b). Primary fuel sources for the state’s electricity generation in 2019 included natural gas, hydroelectric, solar photovoltaic, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, and solar thermal. According to the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California’s electric grid relies increasingly on clean sources of energy such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectricity, and biomass. In addition, by 2025 the use of electricity sourced from out-of-state coal generation will be eliminated. As this transition advances, the grid is also expanding to serve additional loads produced by building and vehicle electrification among other factors. California produces more renewable energy than any other state in the United States with 23,313 megawatts of installed renewable capacity (CEC 2020a; U.S.

EIA 2020).

Pacific Gas & Electric
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is responsible for providing electric power supply to the City. PG&E is one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utility companies, and it maintains 106,681 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,466 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines (PG&E 2021). In 2020, PG&E’s power mix, including all PG&E-owned generation plus the company’s power purchases, consisted of 31 percent renewable resources (wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydro), 34 percent nuclear generation, 15 percent natural gas and other fuels, and 13 percent large hydroelectric facilities (PG&E 2021b). According to PG&E’s 2020 Integrated Resource Plan, PG&E anticipates meeting a 2030 energy load demand of 28,907 gigawatt-hours (PG&E 2020).

Electric Power Infrastructure in the City
There are no electric power plants in the City (U.S. EIA 2019b).

Natural Gas
California’s net natural gas production for 2019 was 166 billion cubic feet, or approximately 172,142 billion British thermal units (Btu; DGEM 2020). The state relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its supply (CEC 2021c). The CEC estimates that approximately 45 percent of the natural gas burned across the state is used for electricity generation, and the remainder is consumed in the residential (21 percent), industrial (25 percent), and commercial (9 percent) sectors. Building and appliance energy efficiency standards account for up to 39 percent in natural gas demand savings between 1975 and 2010 (CEC 2021c).

Southern California Gas
The City is in the natural gas service area of Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which spans central and southern California (CEC 2018a). Natural gas stocks are currently 80.0 billion cubic feet (Bcf) compared with 77.4 Bcf a year ago (EIA 2021). SoCalGas’ service area is equipped with over 102,000 miles of gas transmission, distribution, and service pipelines (SoCalGas 2013). Natural gas supplied by SoCalGas is sourced from gas fields in several sedimentary basins in the western U.S. and Canada including supply basins located in New Mexico (San Juan Basin), West Texas (Permian Basin), Rocky Mountains, western Canada, and local California supplies (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2020).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
Natural Gas Infrastructure in the City
There are no natural gas processing plants located in the city (U.S. EIA 2021b). A main transmission line/high pressure distribution line runs parallel to U.S. 101 from Avila Beach to Price Canyon Road, where the line veers north around the Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant (SoCal Gas 2021). b. Energy Demand
The smallest scale at which energy consumption information is readily available is the county level.

Therefore, energy consumption in San Luis Obispo County is used herein to characterize the city’s existing consumption of petroleum, electricity, and natural gas as detailed in the following subsections.

Petroleum
As shown in Table 4.5-1, San Luis Obispo County consumed an estimated 138 million gallons of gasoline and 22 million gallons of diesel fuel in 2019 (CEC 2021d). Based on San Luis Obispo County’s 2019 population of 277,259 (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2020) and 2019 employment of 118,150 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020), San Luis Obispo County’s annual per service population fuel consumption in 2019 consisted of 349 gallons of gasoline and 55.6 gallons of diesel fuel. As shown in Table 4.5-1, the County consumed an average of approximately 45.4 million Btu per service population of transportation fuel in 2019.

Table 4.5-1 2019 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption Fuel Type
San Luis Obispo County
(gallons)
County Per Service Population
Consumption (gallons)
County Per Service Population
Consumption (MMBtu)
Gasoline 138,000,000 349 38.3
Diesel 22,000,000 55.6 7.1
Total 160,000,000 404.6 45.4
1 For reference, the population of San Luis Obispo County (277,259 persons) is approximately 0.7 percent of the population of California (39,782,870 persons) (California Department of Finance 2020).

Source: CEC 2021d
Electricity
As shown in Table 4.5-2, San Luis Obispo County consumed approximately 1,715 GWh in 2019 (CEC 2020b, 2020c). San Luis Obispo County’s 2019 per service population electricity consumption was approximately 4,337 kWh. As shown in Table 4.5-2, the County’s per service population electricity consumption was approximately 14.8 million Btu in 2019.

Table 4.5-2 2019 Annual Electricity Consumption
Energy Type
San Luis Obispo County
(GWh)
County Per Service Population
Consumption (kWh)
County Per Capita
Consumption (MMBtu)
Electricity 1,715 4,337.3 14.8
For reference, the population of San Luis Obispo County (277,259 persons) is approximately 0.7 percent of the population of California (39,782,870 persons) (California Department of Finance 2020).

Sources: CEC 2020b, 2020c

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-4
Natural Gas
In 2018, SoCalGas customers consumed a total of approximately 8.8 million U.S. therms of natural gas, including residential and non-residential use, electricity generation, and wholesale purchases.

Residential users accounted for approximately 27 percent of SoCal Gas’ natural gas consumption.

From 2020 to 2035, SoCalGas expects residential use and core, non-residential use (including core commercial, industrial, and natural gas vehicles) to decline at an average rate of approximately 1 percent annually. The expected decline in residential use is primarily driven by aggressive energy efficiency goals and associated programs.

As shown in Table 4.5-3, San Luis Obispo County consumed approximately 90 million U.S. therms in 2019 (CEC 2021d, 2021e). San Luis Obispo County’s 2019 per service population natural gas consumption was approximately 227.6 U.S. therms. As shown in Table 4.5-3, the County’s per service population natural gas consumption in 2019 was approximately 21.2 million Btu.

Table 4.5-3 2019 Annual Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Type
San Luis Obispo County
(millions of US therms)
County Per Service Population
Consumption (U.S. Therms)
County Per Capita
Consumption (MMBtu)
Natural Gas 90 227.6 21.2
For reference, the population of San Luis Obispo County (277,259 persons) is approximately 0.7 percent of the population of California (39,782,870 persons) (California Department of Finance 2020).

Sources: CEC 2020d, 2020e

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act, enacted by Congress in 2007, is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil and confronting climate change.

Specifically, it does the following:
 Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.  Reduces United States demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon, an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent as compared to 2007 levels.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also set energy efficiency standards for lighting (specifically light bulbs) and appliances. Development would also be required to install photosensors and energy-efficient lighting fixtures consistent with the requirements of 42 United States Code Section 17001 et seq.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The law placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
administering the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards. In 2012, the U.S. EPA and National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration established final passenger car and light truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for model years 2017 to 2021, which will require a combined average fleet-wide fuel economy of 40.3 to 41.0 miles per gallon in model year 2021 (United States Department of Transportation 2014).

Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by U.S. EPA to identify and promote energy- efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems. Under this program, appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the U.S. EPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes (U.S. EPA 2021).

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The U.S. EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. The Tier 4 emission standards—phased-in from 2008 through 2015—introduce substantial reductions of nitrogen oxides (for engines above 56 kW) and particulate matter (above 19 kW), as well as more stringent hydrocarbon limits. The Tier 4 standards require that emissions of particulate matter and nitrogen oxide from construction equipment be further reduced by approximately 90%. Such emission reductions can be achieved through control technologies including advanced exhaust gas aftertreatment (DieselNet 2017). b. State Regulations
Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allows California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the U.S. EPA.

Pavley I regulated model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emission Vehicle, Zero Emissions Vehicles, and Clean Fuels Outlet programs, and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions (CARB 2011).

However, on September 19, 2019, the U.S. EPA withdrew California’s Clean Air Act preemption waiver and issued the One National Program Rule, which prohibits states from establishing their own separate fuel economy standards or passing laws that substantially affect fuel economy standards. As a result, California may no longer promulgate and enforce its tailpipe GHG emission standard and zero emission vehicle mandate (U.S. EPA 2019).

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-6
Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), the CEC and the CARB prepared and adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand (CEC 2003).

Energy Action Plan
In 2003, the CEC and California Public Utilities Commission set forth their energy policy vision in the Energy Action Plan. The CEC adopted an update to the Energy Action Plan in February 2008 (EAP II) that supplements the earlier Energy Action Plan and examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. The nine major action areas in the Energy Action Plan include energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity adequacy/reliability/ infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure, research/development/demonstration, and climate change (California Public Utilities Commission 2008).

Bioenergy Action Plan (Executive Order S-06-06)
Executive Order (EO) S-06-06 establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower and directs state agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following in-state production targets to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources:
 Produce 20 percent of biofuels used in California by 2010,  Produce 40 percent of biofuels used in California by 2020, and  Produce 75 percent of biofuels used in California by 2050.

EO S-06-06 also calls for the state to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies potential barriers and recommends actions to address them so the state can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:
 Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste  Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
 Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the state  Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7
Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
In response to AB 1007, the CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with the CARB and in consultation with other federal, state, and local agencies. The State Alternative Fuels Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non- petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing substantial degradation of public health and environmental quality (CEC 2007).

Senate Bill 350
The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires a doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the State’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes a wide variety of goals related to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are intended to help meet the State’s 2030 target (CARB 2017).

California Renewable Portfolio Standard and Senate Bill 100 Approved by former Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, SB 100 accelerates the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

California Energy Efficiency Action Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the California Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which covers issues, opportunities, and savings estimates related to energy efficiency in California’s building, industrial, and agricultural sectors. The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan focuses on three goals:

1. Doubling energy efficiency savings by 2030 (SB 350)

2. Removing and reducing barriers to energy efficiency in low-income and disadvantaged communities

3. Reducing GHG emissions from the building sector
The plan offers several recommendations to advance these goals, including expanding funding sources for energy efficiency programs beyond ratepayer portfolios, improving energy efficiency data, integrating energy efficiency into long-term utility planning, enhancing the energy efficiency workforce, improving demand flexibility, and expanding building decarbonization (CEC 2019).

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-8
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards – California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code), adopted on May 9, 2018, became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Standards move toward cutting nonrenewable energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less. The 2019 Standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements (CEC 2018). Section 15.04.010 of the Pismo Beach Municipal Code incorporates the 2019 edition of the California Energy Code by reference (City of Pismo Beach 2020).

California Green Building Standards Code – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 CBC). The 2019 CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of non-residential and residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers (I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.

The 2019 mandatory standards require:
 Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency;  Dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of electric vehicle charging stations in newly constructed attached garages for single-family, duplex dwellings, and nonresidential developments; and
 Designation of at least ten percent of parking spaces for multi-family residential developments and six percent for nonresidential developments as electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle supply equipment
The Tier I and Tier II voluntary standards require stricter energy efficiency requirements and cool/solar reflective roofs. Section 15.04.010 of the Pismo Beach Municipal Code incorporates the 2019 CALGreen by reference (City of Pismo Beach 2020).

Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation
On June 25, 2020, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, which requires truck manufacturers (any manufacturer that certifies vehicles over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) with sales in California to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, all new trucks sold in California must be zero-emission.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
c. Local Regulations
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 2019 Regional Transportation Plan The 2019 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a comprehensive assessment of all forms of transportation available in San Luis Obispo County and the region’s blueprint for a transportation system that meets the mobility needs of the region’s residents and visitors. The 2019 RTP contains a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as required by SB 375. Enacted in 2008, SB 375 requires that each Metropolitan Planning Organization include an SCS that provides an integrated land use and transportation plan for meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set forth by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The 2019 RTP coordinates land use, housing, and transportation planning to reduce the amount the amount of time people spend on the road. This effort is part of a statewide strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet regional targets, and may help attract funding for our communities and streamline permitting processes Pismo Beach Climate Action Plan (PBCAP)
The following measures and implementation actions from the PBCAP would apply to energy consumption related to the proposed project (City of Pismo Beach 2014):
 Measure C-1 City Government Energy Efficiency Retrofits and Upgrades. Establish a target to reduce City government energy use by 10 percent by 2020 and implement cost-effective improvements and upgrades to achieve that target.
 Action C-1.1: Adopt a City government energy use target.  Action C-1.4: Establish a prioritized list of energy efficiency upgrade projects and implement them as funding becomes available.
 Action C-1.5: Install an energy management system that monitors energy use and controls heating, cooling, and ventilation to increase efficiency.  Measure C-3 Energy Efficiency Requirements for New City-owned Buildings. Adopt a policy to exceed minimum Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by a certain percentage for the construction or renovation of new City buildings and facilities.  Action C-3.1: Adopt a policy to exceed Title 24 building efficiency standards by 30 percent.  Measure C-4 Renewable Energy Systems on City Property. Pursue on-site small-scale renewable energy generation at City government facilities.
 Action C-4.2: Install small-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, solar hot water heaters, or other renewable energy projects at select City government facilities.  Measure C-6 Zero- and Low-Emission City Fleet Vehicles. Continue to replace official City vehicles and equipment with more efficient and/or alternatively fueled vehicles.  Measure E-4 Incentives for Exceeding Title 24 Energy Efficiency Building Standards. Provide incentives (e.g., priority permitting, reduced permit fees, etc.) for new development and/or major remodels that voluntarily exceed State energy efficiency standards.  Action E-4.2: Identify, provide and promote incentives (e.g., expedited or streamlined permitting, deferred fees, public recognition, etc.) for applicants whose project exceeds State requirements by a specified percent.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-10
 Action E-4.3: Update building permit process to incentivize higher building performance (e.g., buildings that integrate and optimize major high-performance building attributes, including energy efficiency, durability, and life-cycle performance).  Measure E-5 On-Site Small-Scale Solar PV Incentive Program. Facilitate the voluntary installation of on-site small-scale solar PV systems and solar hot water heaters in the community through expanded promotion of existing financial incentives, rebates, and financing programs, and by helping residents and business owners overcome common regulatory barriers and upfront capital costs.
 Action E-5.4: Participate in and promote a renewable energy financing program to encourage investment in small-scale on-site solar PV systems.
 Measure TL-8 Electric Vehicle Network and Alternative Fueling Stations. Continue to work with the APCD, Central Coast Clean Cities Coalition, and neighboring jurisdictions to create and implement the electric vehicle readiness plan.
 Action TL-8.2: Provide streamlined installation and permitting procedures for vehicle charging facilities, utilizing tools provided in the electric vehicle readiness plan (e.g., sample charging permits, model ordinances, development guidelines, outreach programs).  Measure TL-9 Smart Growth. Facilitate mixed-use, higher density, and infill development near existing or planned transit stops, in existing community centers/downtown, and in other designated areas.
 Action TL-9.1: Provide and promote incentives (e.g., parking reductions, priority permitting, etc.) for mixed-use and very high-density development that has a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and is located within ¼-mile of an existing or planned transit stop or park and ride facility with regularly scheduled, daily service.  Action TL-9.2: Develop a form-based zoning code for the central business district/downtown.

Form-based codes emphasize building form rather than use. This increases flexibility for a variety of complementary uses to be permitted in the same area, and the potential for mixed- use development, which helps to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines considers a project to have a significant impact on energy resources if the project would:
 Result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Methodology
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) states that an EIR shall include “mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” The physical

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11
environmental impacts associated with the use of energy, including the generation of electricity and burning of fuels, have been accounted for in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change.

Energy consumption is categorized herein in terms of “direct” and “indirect” energy. Direct energy accounts for energy consumed during operation of the transportation system and land use scenario envisioned under the GP/LCP Update, such as fuel consumed by vehicles, natural gas consumed for heating and/or power, and electricity consumed for power. Indirect energy is the energy needed for construction and maintenance of the transportation system and land use scenario facilitated by the GP/LCP Update. The analysis of direct energy involves the quantification of anticipated transportation fuel, natural gas, and electricity consumption under the GP/LCP Update and a qualitative discussion of the efficiency, necessity, and wastefulness of the energy consumption.

Analysis of indirect energy involves a qualitative discussion of construction and maintenance energy requirements anticipated under 2040 buildout of the GP/LCP Update.

Buildout of the GP/LCP Update would generate direct energy consumption from transportation fuel from the anticipated growth of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. Currently, there is not sufficient detail regarding the new development under the GP/LCP Update; therefore, 2040 buildout assumptions for direct energy impacts have been used to estimate energy usage for land use buildout.

Projections for transportation fuel consumption under 2040 buildout conditions were calculated based on the Mobile Source Emission Inventory (EMFAC) 2014 database. As such, direct energy consumption from transportation fuel for the GP/LCP Update is discussed based on EMFAC 2014 projections and qualitatively. For 2040 natural gas and electricity consumption under buildout of the land use scenario envisioned by the GP/LCP Update, consumption factors were drawn from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0. The CalEEMod data is provided as Appendix F . Transportation fuel, natural gas, and electricity per capita consumption in 2040 is presented in comparison to 2019 per capita consumption for informational purposes. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold: Would the GP/LCP Update result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during construction or operation?
Impact E-1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD REQUIRE TEMPORARY AND LONG-TERM CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES. HOWEVER, BUILDOUT

OF THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES. IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The GP/LCP Update would result in the use of energy during construction and operation of new development in the City. Energy use during construction would be primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Long-term operation of development projects would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting, and heating and cooling systems. In addition, the increase in vehicle trips associated with potential development would increase fuel consumption

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-12
Indirect Construction and Maintenance Energy Use
Construction and maintenance of future land use development envisioned under GP/LCP Update would result in short-term consumption of energy resulting from the use of construction equipment and processes. CALGreen includes specific requirements related to recycling, construction materials, and energy efficiency standards that would apply to construction of future development envisioned by the GP/LCP Update and would minimize wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption. Construction and operation of projects facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be required to comply with relevant provisions of CALGreen and Title 24 of the California Energy Code, which would further avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption.

New Direct Natural Gas and Electricity Consumption
Operation of new development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would consume natural gas and electricity for building heating and power, lighting, and water conveyance, among other operational requirements. Table 4.5-4 shows net new per service population natural gas and electricity consumption under buildout of the GP/LCP Update.

Table 4.5-4 Projected 2040 Annual Natural Gas and Electricity Consumption in Pismo Beach
Year
Per Service
Population Consumption
Direct Energy Consumption
(Daily Per Service Population MMBtu)
Natural Gas U.S. Therms
2019 (SLO County Existing) 227.6 21.2
2040 (Pismo Beach Buildout) 80.2 7.5
Electricity kWh
2019 (SLO County Existing) 4,317 14.74
2040 (Pismo Beach Buildout) 4,172.6 14.2
Notes: Per service population consumption in 2040 is derived from dividing estimated 2040 buildout energy consumption by service population anticipated by 2040. Per service population energy consumption is expressed in U.S. therms for natural gas, kilowatt-hours (kWh) for electricity, and millions of Btu (MMBtu) for both.

As shown in Table 4.5-1, new per service population natural gas consumption with buildout of the land use scenario envisioned under the GP/ LCP Update would be approximately 7.5 MMBtu for natural gas and approximately 14.2 MMBtu for electricity. These estimates represent a decrease in per service population energy consumption with the GP/LCP Update. Therefore, stricter emissions regulations and increased energy efficiencies of buildings in the GP/LCP Update would result in the decrease in per service population energy consumption.

The Conservation and Open Space Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that would prevent inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption during construction and operation of development facilitated by the General Plan. The GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space goals, policies, and actions that present the greatest potential for reducing wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption are as follows:

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13
Goal COS-2 – A community that conserves the important natural resources of Pismo Beach for the community’s health, safety and enjoyment, including air quality, renewable energy, geology and soils, minerals, water quality and supply, and dark skies.  Policy COS-2.1: Improve Air Quality. The City shall support health and enjoyment for those who live or work in the City and for visitors.
 Action COS-2.1a: Community Trip Reduction. In order to reduce pollution, the City shall emphasize various procedures to reduce the number of vehicle trips and the number of vehicle miles traveled in the community. Techniques shall include, but not be limited to, transportation management measures such as vanpools, carpools, and subsidized transit passes; jobs/housing balance; bikeways and facilities; pedestrian facilities; electric vehicles and related infrastructure and transit improvements.
 Action COS-2.1b: City Employee Trip Reduction. Develop, implement, and promote a TDM program for City employees that includes incentives to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, such as ride matching services and assistance, flexible work schedules or telecommuting opportunities, end of trip facilities (parking, showers, lockers), subsidized transit passes, etc.
 Action COS-2.1c: Electric Vehicles. Establish electric vehicle parking spaces and charging requirements to lower pollution, and reduce the City’s reliance on gasoline.  Action COS-2.1d: City Fleet Replacement. Develop and adopt a low- and zero- emissions replacement/purchasing policy for official City vehicles and equipment. This would not apply to vehicles with special performance requirements.
 Policy COS-2.2: Renewable Energy. Support and incentivize renewable energy and non- renewable energy consumption.
 Action COS-2.2a – Solar Incentives. The City shall promote and inform development applicants and existing home owners and businesses of the following solar incentives and other incentives as may be appropriate:
− California Solar Initiative Rebate Program
− California Alternative Rates for Energy Program
− California Energy Commission – New Solar Homes Partnership − GRID Alternatives - Single-Family Affordable Solar Housing Program − Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo Energy Services  Action COS-2.2b: Energy Audits for Community Buildings. Complete energy audits and benchmarking of all City-owned or -operated facilities, leveraging existing programs, such as Pacific Gas & Electric's Automated Benchmarking Service or the U.S. EPA’s ENERGY STAR Challenge program.
 Action COS-2.2c: Energy Efficient Upgrades. Establish a prioritized list of energy efficiency upgrade projects and implement them as funding becomes available.

The GP/LCP Update Land Use goals, policies, and actions that present the greatest potential for reducing wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption are as follows:

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-14
Goal LU-1: A community with a variety of well-regulated land uses that support the diverse needs of both residents and visitors.
 Policy LU-1.2: Commercial Uses. The City shall include land use designations that allow for visitor-serving, neighborhood and regional commercial uses.  Action LU-1.2h: Drive-Thru Services Prohibited. In order to maintain and promote a more pedestrian-oriented beach community character, as well as to reduce the high volume of vehicle trips attracted by drive-thru establishments, the City shall prohibit any new development of drive-thru services in restaurants, banks, dry cleaners and other business establishments in the Downtown Core and Shell Beach Planning Areas.

Goal LU-5: A community that supports the health, safety, and sustainability of all residents, visitors and structures.
 Policy LU-5.2: Complete Neighborhood. Provide well-connected and complete neighborhoods that enable healthy lifestyles and provide for the daily needs of residents.  Action LU-5.2a: Mixed-Use Neighborhoods. Create standards for each commercial zone to allow for mixed-use-residential areas within proximity and walking distance of commercial, office, recreation, and public uses. Furthermore, identify opportunities to provide a mix of commercial- and recreation uses within walking distance of residential neighborhoods to enable and encourage walking and biking between uses.
 Action LU-5.2b: Transit Accessibility. Locate and design all new commercial and high- density residential development to facilitate provision or extension of transit service to the development to the extent feasible. Major employment, retail, visitor-serving facilities, and entertainment districts and major coastal recreational areas should be well served by public transit and easily accessible to pedestrians and people who bike.  Policy LU-5.3: Sustainable Community Strategies. Ensure land uses decisions and community strategies are designed to reduce energy and water consumption, waste and noise generation, air quality impacts; and support multimodal transport for a sustainable Pismo Beach.  Action LU-5.3a: Sustainable Infrastructure. The City shall:

Promote infrastructure expansion where it will be more efficient and effective and does not promote growth inducement or result in adverse impacts to coastal resources. See also Goal LU-7 for policies and actions related to growth management.

Focus infrastructure improvements in designated growth areas and contiguous to existing development.
 Action LU-5.3c: Sustainable Design Incentive Program. Consider the feasibility of providing incentives for new and renovated projects that incorporate sustainable design features such as the construction of new buildings that reduce energy demand though natural features, such as green roofs and walls or energy efficiency above and beyond the current building code. Inform applicants of the benefits and incentives for green building practices and pursuit of LEED certification.
 Action LU-5.3b: Trail and Bikeway System. Update and expand the trail and bikeway system to connect residential uses to commercial uses, and workplace and recreation nodes. Such trails and bikeways shall consider following natural features like Pismo Creek and the shoreline, while avoiding adverse impacts to the natural features.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-15
 Action LU-5.3d: Transit-Oriented Development. Support the development of multifamily residential and mixed-use projects around the City’s transit station, by allowing a reduction in the parking requirements or other development standards, and require new development to incorporate or improve pedestrian, bicycle, and where applicable, transit facilities.

In addition to the above goals, policies, and actions, the GP/LCP Update encourages compact mixed- use development and multimodal transportation to reduce overall energy consumption and result in greater energy efficiency throughout Pismo Beach. Compact mixed-use developments improve energy efficiency as the resulting development pattern places City residents closer to places of employment, businesses residents patronize, and public transit opportunities. By placing new services and amenities closer to where people live and work, the GP/LCP Update would minimize the need to drive and reduce per service population energy consumption.

Direct Transportation Energy Use
Daily operation of the regional transportation system uses energy in the form of fuel consumed by propulsion of passenger vehicles, including automobiles, vans and trucks, and transit vehicles, including buses and trains. Increases in motor vehicle trips are primarily a combined function of population and employment growth.

Table 4.5-5 shows annual VMT and estimated fuel consumption translated into energy use (Btu) in the Pismo Beach under existing conditions and future 2040 conditions with implementation of the GP/LCP Update.

Table 4.5-5 Direct Transportation Energy Use in Pismo Beach Year
Service Population
(Residents + Employees) Daily VMT 1
Direct Energy Consumption
(Daily Per Service
Population MMBtu) 2
(Existing) 13,156 30,757 45.4
2040 (New Development Only) 2,420 6,015 31.2
2040 (Buildout + New Development) 15,576 36,897 31.2
1 Daily VMT for Existing and Buildout + New Development GP/LCP Update were applied to the existing and 2040 scenarios, respectively. 2 Daily VMT and county-level fuel consumption information was used to derive a per capita daily Btu per VMT consumption factor. (refer to Table 4.5-1).

Notes: Per Service Population Btu/VMT factor is expressed in singular Btu while Daily Per Service Population Direct Energy Consumption is expressed in millions of Btu (MMBtu).

As shown in Table 4.5-5 direct transportation energy demand would decrease from 45.4 daily MMBtu per service population to approximately 31.2 daily MMBtu per service population. The reduction from existing to 2040, which is observed across all 2040 scenarios shown in Table 4.5-5, is primarily the result of the increase in vehicle fuel efficiency anticipated by 2040 (refer to Section

4.5.1(b), Energy Demand, for a discussion of consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel under existing conditions).

The decrease in per service population energy consumption shown in Table 4.5-5 is based on a business-as-usual estimate of 2040 VMT and does not account for proposed GP/LCP Update Policies from the Circulation Element that would further improve the availability of alternative transportation modes and help reduce congestion and overall demand for transportation fuels. The Circulation Element contains policies to promote a reduction in VMT through support of alternative

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-16
transportation. The Circulation Element identifies priorities for upgrades to bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and other amenities for alternative modes of transportation. The relevant Circulation Element policies are:
 Policy CE-1.6: Neighborhood Context. Support safe, complete and well-connected neighborhoods for street, bicycle, and pedestrian access. Connections should balance circulation needs within the neighborhood context.
 Policy CE-2.1: Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycle riding for transportation, recreation, commuting, and improvement of public and environmental health.

Make downtown more functional and enjoyable for bicyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths shall receive at least the same emphasis and attention in future planning as facilities designed for the automobile.
 Policy CE-2.4: Maintain and Improve Existing Facilities. Maintain and improve existing multimodal circulation and transportation systems and facilities, to maximize alternatives to new street and highway construction. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed parts of the City and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
 Action CE-2.1a: Integration of Land Use Planning. Implement land use policies designed to create a pattern of activity that makes it easy to shop, recreate, commute, and conduct personal business without driving.
 Action CE-2.1c: Bikeways Encouraged. Bikeways shall be encouraged within the City and adjoining jurisdictions as a complement to Pismo Beach's visitor and recreation emphasis, to reduce automobile trips and for the convenience of visitors and residents. The City's bikeway plan will be coordinated with the San Luis Obispo Area Coordinating Council and Regional Transportation Agency, and the County of San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Plan.
 Action CE-2.1e: Pedestrian Circulation. sidewalks shall be required for all new developments in residential (other than individual single family residential) and commercial areas. Generally, the sidewalk shall be located so that a landscape strip or trees are located between the sidewalk and the vehicular travelled way. Techniques shall be encouraged to create a pleasant walking experience including concern for views, paving materials, landscape, street furniture, and pedestrian scaled lighting. The City encourages the use of flashing beacons or lighted crosswalk systems, especially in highly trafficked areas. All new sidewalk areas shall be designed to accommodate the handicapped, compliant with the ADA. Also, the City shall install (or cause to be installed) sidewalks or footpaths along all collector or arterial streets that connect with commercial centers, public gathering areas and schools.
 Action CE-2.1g: Pedestrians Connections to Employment Destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers’ ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings across US 101.
 Action CE-2.2c: Pedestrian Connections to Schools. Continue developing the existing network of walkways between schools and residential uses and encourage the development of new continuous walkways between schools and residential uses. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings across US 101.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.5-17
 Policy CE-4.1: Promote Safe, Efficient, and Convenient Public Transportation. Promote the use of public transportation for daily trips, including to schools and workplaces, as well as other purposes.
 Action CE-4.2a: Improve Local Transit Operations. Work with RTA and SCT to continue the present course of expanding the SCT fixed route services and improving operations.  Action CE-4.1b: Downtown Transit Priority Area. Strive to establish a downtown as a Transit Priority Area by establishing transit service of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.  Action CE-4.1a: Comprehensive Transit Services. The City shall support the availability of transit service as a means to reduce automobile congestion, to provide transportation for those who have no other form of transportation, as a means to reduce air pollution, and as a service to visitors. Such support should include, but not be limited to, SCT, Greyhound bus service, vanpools, shuttle bus systems, dial-a-ride services, and cab services.  Action CE-4.2b: Multimodal Transfer Centers. The City will continue to work with Caltrans, SCT, RTA, SLOCOG, and the commuting public to develop multimodal transfer areas or centers that will incorporate automobile parking areas, bike parking, bus, transit, pedestrian bike paths, and park and ride pick-up or drop-off points for carpooling.

Implementation of the GP/LCP Update goals and policies listed above, as well as other policies and implementation actions contained in the GP/LCP Update that would result in indirect energy conservation (such as the promotion of alternative transportation, water conservation, and waste reduction) would promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. Furthermore, the GP/LCP Update land use strategy actively promotes infill and mixed- use development, which would result in increased energy efficiency overall for City residents, businesses, and City operations. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation is required because this impact would be less than significant.

Threshold: Would the GP/LCP Update conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact E-2 THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY GOALS IN THE PISMO BEACH CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF PROJECTS FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD COMPLY WITH RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE STATE’S CALGREEN PROGRAM AND TITLE 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Impact GHG-1 ,the GP/LCP Update would not conflict with regional and State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, which would also reduce energy consumption. The PBCAP contains measures intended to increase energy efficiency, expand the use of renewable energy. and facilitate new infill development, which would be located in close proximity to existing transit connections, City services, and employment centers. However, the PBCAP only contains targets to meet the State’s 2020 GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. Implementation of GP/LCP Update Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS-2.1h would establish GHG reduction goals

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.5-18
consistent with the State’s 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Conservation Element Policies COS-2.1i, COS-2.1j, and COS-2.1k would require the City to update the CAP to comply with evolving state goals and requirements and would ensure that the CAP continues to provide measures for future development projects in the planning area to assess their consistency with City GHG reduction goals. The PBCAP transportation and land use measures recognize that energy-efficient designs or growth that facilitates mixed-use, higher density, and infill development near transit stops, in existing community centers, allows for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and improves City-wide efforts to reduce GHG emissions (City of Pismo Beach 2014).

Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would facilitate the consistency of future development projects with both mandatory and voluntary measures of the CAP, resulting in reduced per service population energy consumption. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not conflict with local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

As described in Impact E-1, construction and operation of new development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would result in indirect energy conservation (such as the promotion of alternative transportation, water conservation, and waste reduction) would promote greater energy efficiency in municipal and community operations and development. New development that would be facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be required to comply with relevant provisions of CALGreen and Title 24 of the California Energy Code. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
The analysis in this section examines impacts of the GP/LCP Update on cumulative energy impacts throughout the County of San Luis Obispo (the cumulative impact analysis area) and is cumulative in nature. Based on the comparisons of GP/LCP Update buildout electricity, natural gas, and fuel demand to existing local demand for these resources shown in Table 4.5-4 and Table 4.5-5, energy demand associated with GP/LCP Update buildout would result in a decrease in cumulative energy demand over the life of the GP/LCP Update. As described in Impact E-1, construction and operation of all new development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update would be consistent with the City’s adopted goals and policies to increase energy efficiency and would be required to comply with relevant provisions of CALGreen and Title 24 of the California Energy Code. Furthermore, California’s use of non-renewable electricity and natural gas are expected to continue to decline as a proportion of overall energy demand due to stringent energy efficiency measures and a growing acceptance of solar power by residential and commercial customers. Therefore, the GP/LCP Update would not be expected to contribute substantially to a cumulative increase in energy demand, result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or result in the need for construction of new major facilities or substantial alteration of existing facilities to meet projected energy demands and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1

4.6 Geology and Soils
This section of the EIR analyzes the potential physical environmental effects related to seismic hazards, underlying soil characteristics, slope stability, and erosion from implementation of the proposed General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update.

4.6.1 Setting
a. Geologic Setting
Pismo Beach lies at the tectonically active southern end of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province and contains geologic units ranging in age from Jurassic to recent. The Coast Ranges extend about 600 miles from the Oregon border south to the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County and are characterized by numerous north-south–trending peaks and valleys that range in elevation from approximately 500 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 7,581 feet amsl at the highest summit (California Geological Survey 2002). The basement rocks of the Coast Ranges include the Jurassic to Cretaceous rocks of the Franciscan Assemblage, which consist of over 55,000 feet of greywacke, greenstone, bluestone, metasedimentary rocks, and ophiolite sequences. During the Mesozoic and into the Cenozoic, the area of the present-day Coast Ranges was covered by marine waters, resulting in the thick accumulation of marine and nonmarine shale, sandstone, and conglomerate on the Franciscan basement rock. Later, these deposits were unconformably overlain by Paleocene to Pliocene continental shelf marine sedimentary rocks. During the Late Miocene to the Late Pliocene, a mountain-building episode occurred in the vicinity of the present-day Coast Ranges, resulting in their uplift above sea level. Subsequently, from the Late Pliocene to Pleistocene, extensive deposits of terrestrial material, including alluvial fans and fluvial sediments, were deposited in the Coast Ranges (Norris and Webb 1990). Ongoing tectonic deformation and sea level change related to Pleistocene climate fluctuations continued through the Quaternary Period, resulting in the formation of marine terrace platforms along the Coast Ranges. b. Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Geologic and seismic hazards are caused by the movement of the earth’s surface. The most common geologic or seismic hazards are associated with earthquakes, which cause the earth’s surface to move rapidly and the ground to shake. Pismo Beach has experienced the effects of several seismic events in the past 150 years. The most recent earthquake that impacted Pismo Beach was the San Simeon earthquake in 2003, which resulted in building damage and small fires in San Luis Obispo County.

There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones within the City. There are seven seismically active faults that have been identified in San Luis Obispo County, with potential to affect the City of Pismo Beach (City). These faults include the Los Osos Fault, the Hosgri fault, the Oceanic-West Huasna fault, the Rinconada fault, the East Huasna fault, the La Panza fault, the San Andreas fault, and the Wilmar Avenue fault. Other faults not included in this list, as well as faults located outside of the Pismo Beach region, may be capable of generating earthquakes that could cause damage in the City.

The only fault within City limits is the Wilmar Avenue fault, which terminates on the south end of the City. The Wilmar Avenue Fault is exposed in the sea cliff near Pismo Beach and is considered potentially active. In addition, there may be unknown faults in the area that could cause significant ground shaking or fault rupture. Figure 4.6-1 identifies the location of known fault lines in the vicinity of Pismo Beach.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-2
Seismic activity can trigger other types of hazards, including surface rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, subsidence and tsunamis. The effects of tsunamis are discussed in detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. These effects of surface rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, and subsidence are described below.

Fault Rupture
Fault rupture is the movement of the ground surface along a fault line when the plates slip past each other. Depending on the type of fault, the movement may be vertical, horizontal, or both. The damage can be severe, as any building or structure that straddles the fault is effectively pulled in two directions at once. However, the damage area from fault rupture is generally limited to locations on the fault itself. Some earthquakes can occur without causing fault rupture. Such earthquakes are usually small, but some can be much more substantial, such as the 2003 San Simeon earthquake. These events are known as “blind thrust earthquakes.” As shown on Figure 4.6-1, the Wilmar Avenue fault is located within the City, terminating on the south end of the City, and poses a risk of fault rupture hazard along the fault trace.

Groundshaking
Groundshaking occurs when the passage of seismic waves causes the ground to shake, resulting in damage to structures. Groundshaking is triggered by seismic activity on faults and is most likely to occur near regional fault lines shown on Figure 4.6-1.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loose soil loses strength and behaves like a liquid during an earthquake, creating the potential for structural damage to buildings in the vicinity, as shown in Figure 4.6-2.

There is only one area of high liquefaction risk, on the beach west of North Beach Campground and at the mouth of Pismo Creek. Areas of moderate liquefaction risk can be found in the southernmost coastal area of Pismo Beach as well as along Pismo Creek (San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department 2016).

Landslides
Landslides can be caused by shaking of an earthquake causing loose material to slide down a slope.

Landslide risk is higher in the eastern portion of the City, as shown in Figure 4.6-3. Areas that are considered high or very high risk are concentrated in the eastern portion of the City where development is sparse. These areas include some residential, commercial, and natural lands east of U.S. 101.

Expansive Soils
Soils have the ability to damage houses by being especially expansive or corrosive. There are three soil types present within Pismo Beach city limits. The primary soil type are mollisols, with entisols and alfisols covering a smaller portion of land in eastern Pismo Beach (NRCS 1994). None of these soils are considered expansive.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
Figure 4.6-1 Regional Fault Lines

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-4
Figure 4.6-2 Liquefaction Susceptibility

Source: County of San Luis Obispo 2019.

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
Figure 4.6-3 Landslide Susceptibility

Source: County of San Luis Obispo 2019.

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU-1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-6
Coastal Bluff Erosion
Slope and bluff erosion and instability has historically been a common hazard in Pismo Beach, and is expected to increase as a result of sea level rise. Approximately five miles of the northwestern coastline of the City consists of cliffs and bluffs, which range from 10 to 100 feet tall. There is a high risk for erosion across nearly all of Pismo Beach’s coastline (Herberger 2009). Erosion has claimed public and private investments in the past and continues to threaten these abutting properties today. High tides and waves can cause erosion of beach environments, including sand dunes, at varying rates, depending of the types of geologic units in the area. Over time, erosion can degrade coastal access, decrease beach quality, and weaken dunes that help to protect coastal structures.

While erosion is driven by natural processes, human activities such as shoreline hardening, dredging, and coastal structures can alter natural processes and exacerbate erosion.

Residential and recreational development are the primary uses that occupy bluff areas, including The Bluffs residential planning area and South Palisades Park. Developments on top of the bluffs are endangered by erosion and subject to considerable setbacks and other measures to ensure that development will not occur on plots that are in imminent danger of erosion.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric life. Fossils are typically preserved in layered sedimentary rocks and the distribution of fossils is a result of the sedimentary history of the geologic units within which they occur. Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. Although it is not possible to determine whether a fossil will occur in any specific location, it is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they do occur during construction. A list of the geologic units mapped at the surface within Pismo Beach is provided in Figure 4.6-4 (Dibblee and Minch 2006a, b).

Significant paleontological resources are determined to be fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, rare, diagnostically important, or are common but have the potential to provide valuable scientific information for evaluating evolutionary patterns and geologic processes. New or unique specimens can provide new insights into evolutionary history; however, additional specimens of even well represented lineages can be equally important for studying evolutionary pattern and process and evolutionary rates. As such, common fossils, especially vertebrates, may be scientifically important. Refer to Table 4.6-1 for the paleontological sensitivities of the geologic units mapped within the City of Pismo Beach.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7
Figure 4.6-4 Geologic Units in the City of Pismo Beach

Note: For the purposes of this map, this figure does not include the submerged lands offshore that are within the Pismo Beach City Limits. See Figure LU- 1 of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Land Use Element (Pismo Beach LAFCO-approved City Border) for the full Pismo Beach City Limits

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-8
Table 4.6-1 Geologic Units in the City of Pismo Beach
Geologic Unit1 Description Age Sensitivity
(Qa) Quaternary
young alluvial
deposits
Active and recently active floodplain deposits of.

Consists of unconsolidated sandy, silty, and clay-
bearing alluvium.

Late Holocene Low at the surface,
increases at depth
(high sensitivity at
depths below 5
feet)
(Qbs) Quaternary
young beach sand
Unconsolidated beach deposits consisting mostly
of fine- to medium-grained well-sorted sand.

Late Holocene Low
(Qoa) Quaternary
old alluvial deposits
Moderately consolidated, slightly dissected gravel,
sand, silt and clay-bearing alluvium, capped by
moderate to well-developed soils
Late to middle
Pleistocene
High
(QTp) Paso Robles
Formation
Alluvial gravel, sand and clay, light medium gray,
pebbles mostly of white siliceous shale from
Monterey Formation.

Pleistocene to
Pleiocene
High
(Tsw) Squire
Sandstone
Sandstone, white to gray-white, fine to medium
grained, arkosic, friable; equivalent to Careaga
Sandstone of Santa Maria basin and Squire
Member of Pismo Formation.

Pliocene High
(Tp, Tps) Pismo
Formation
Tp-- Claystone, siltstone, gray, weathered tan,
vaguely bedded, includes sandstone, similar to Tps
Tps--Massive, white, calcareous, fine- to medium-
grained, quartzose to arkosic, silty sandstone.

Sand grains subrounded to subrangular; 75-80%
quartz, 15-20% feldspar; less than 15% mafic
minerals. Contains lenses of white, well-rounded
pebbles and cobbles of Monterey and Obispo
Formation clasts near mouth of San Luis Obispo
Creek. Bioturbated with greenish glauconitic sand
coatings and clay and silt interbeds in footwall of
Wilmar Avenue Fault at Pismo Beach.

Early Pliocene to late
Miocene
High
(Tm, Tml) Monterey
Formation
Tm- Bedded, resistant chert, color varies from
white and gray to brown and reddish-brown,
weathering to chalky white. Brittle, conchoidal
fracturing, commonly sheared, beds ½ to 6-inches
thick, commonly laminated, locally interbedded
with diatomite.

Tml- Shale, cream-white-weathered, thin-bedded,
fissible; includes thin calcareous layers, mostly at
base
Late to middle
Miocene
High
(Tot) Obispo
Formation
Tuff and tuff breccia, white to creamy-white,
locally silicified or zeolitized to coherent rock
Early to middle
Miocene
Low
A review of the museum records maintained in the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online collections database did not result in any vertebrate fossil localities within late Holocene alluvial deposits (Qa), late Holocene beach sand (Qbs), or early to middle Miocene Obispo Formation (Tot) (UCMP 2021). However, the UCMP reports at least one vertebrate fossil locality (V6546) in San Luis Obispo County from Quaternary old (Pleistocene) alluvial deposits (e.g., Qoa), which yielded specimens of camelid (Camelidae). Three vertebrate fossil localities (V5406, V97131, V97132) from Pleistocene to Pliocene Paso Robles Formation (QTp), which produced specimens of Hagerman horse (Equus simplicidens), were documented in San Luis Obispo and Monterey counties.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9
The UCMP reports six additional vertebrate fossil localities (V6616, V70148, V73143, V74087, V75025, V99650) in San Luis County from Pliocene Squire Sandstone (Tsw) and Early Pliocene to late Miocene Pismo Formation (Tp, Tps), which yielded specimens of Cuesta sea cow (Hydrodamalis cuestae), toothed whale (Odontoceti), baleen whale (Mysticeti), seal (Pinnipedia), dugong (Dusisiren), hooked-tooth mako shark (Isurus planus) horse (Equus), and bird (Gavia concinna).

Furthermore, numerous vertebrate localities have been documented from the Monterey Formation (Tm, Tml), which yielded specimens of large sea turtles, whale, dolphins, sea lions, shark bones and teeth, sea cows, desmostylians, fish, birds, and many other fauna (Bramlette 1946; Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021).

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting authority is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Pismo Beach extends across two watersheds of the South County sub- region: Pismo Creek Watershed (No. 8) and Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (No. 9), which is administered by the Central Coast RWQCB.

Individual projects within the City that disturb more than one acre would be required to obtain coverage under the California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger would use to manage storm water runoff and to reduce soil erosion.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by invoking new and revitalized approaches to mitigation planning.

Section 322 of the Act emphasized the need for state and local government entities to closely coordinate on mitigation planning activities and makes the development of a hazard mitigation plan a specific eligibility requirement for any local government applying for federal mitigation grant funds. Communities with an adopted and federally-approved hazard mitigation plan thereby become pre-positioned and more apt to receive available mitigation funds before and after the next declared disaster.

To implement the new Stafford Act provisions, FEMA published requirements and procedures for local hazard mitigation plans in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 44, Chapter 1, Part 201.6. These regulations specify minimum standards for developing, updating, and submitting local hazard mitigation plans for FEMA review and approval at least once every five years.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-10
b. State Regulations
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2 provides building codes and standards for the design and construction of structures in California. The 2019 CBC is based on the 2015 International Building Code with the addition of more extensive structural seismic provisions. Chapter 16 of the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces on structures. The CBC requires addressing soil-related hazards, such as treating hazardous soil conditions involving removal, proper fill selection, and compaction. In cases where soil remediation is not feasible, the CBC requires structural reinforcement of foundations to resist the forces of expansive soils.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Act provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. The Alquist-Priolo Act groups faults into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (the Act) of 1990 was passed into law following the destructive October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The Act directs the CGS to delineate Seismic Hazard Zones. The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities, counties, and State agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their land-use planning and permitting processes. The Act requires that site-specific geotechnical investigations be performed prior to permitting most urban development projects within seismic hazard zones.

California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are protected under CEQA, which states in part a project will “normally” have a significant effect on the environment if it, among other things, will disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study. Specifically, in Section VII(f) of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form, the question is posed thus: “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.” To determine the uniqueness of a given paleontological resource, it must first be identified or recovered (i.e., salvaged). Therefore, CEQA mandates mitigation of adverse impacts, to the extent practicable, to paleontological resources.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-11
CEQA does not define “a unique paleontological resource or site.” However, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has defined a “significant paleontological resource” in the context of environmental review as follows:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are typically to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years) (SVP 2010).

The loss of paleontological resources meeting the criteria outlined above (i.e., a significant paleontological resource) would be a significant impact under CEQA, and the CEQA lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated, where practicable, in compliance with CEQA and other applicable statutes.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Here “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, and for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
c. Local Regulations
General Plan
California Government Code Section 65300 describes the scope and authority of local jurisdictions to prepare, adopt, and amend general plans. Communities prepare general plans to guide the long- term physical development of the jurisdiction, and any land within the jurisdiction’s sphere of influence (SOI). At a minimum, the California Government Code requires general plans to address land use, circulation, housing, noise, conservation, open space, and safety issues. The City’s current GP/LCP includes two parts as required by the Coastal Act: a Land Use Plan (LUP), which was last updated in 1993, and the Implementation Plan (IP), which was last updated in 1983, with several amendments to both documents occurring since.

The Conservation and Open Space Element guides the protection of natural and cultural resources and conservation areas important to the environment, quality-of-life, and visual character of Pismo Beach. This element identifies local goals that present the projected characteristics of the City’s natural environment in 2040, policies that measure progress toward the goals, and actions that

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-12
identify the regulatory tools the City can use to meet those goals, including those relating to reducing erosion.

The Safety Element includes goals, policies, and actions to guide development towards locations and patterns that reduce risk and increase resilience to hazard events. Like many California coastal communities, Pismo Beach is most susceptible to hazards involving earthquakes, flooding, landslides, and wildfires. As a result of climate change and sea level rise, Pismo Beach is forecasted to experience more severe fire and flooding and worsening air pollution, coastal erosion, and extreme heat.

Pismo Beach Municipal Code
The Buildings and Construction Ordinance of the City of Pismo Beach, Title 15 of the Pismo Beach Municipal Code, adopts by reference the 2019 CBC (Volumes 1 and 2). Municipal Code Chapter

15.08 includes construction regulations for seismic safety requiring structural analysis of buildings to be conducted by a civil or structural engineer or architect licensed by the State and requires any noncomplying structures to be altered or demolished. Municipal Code Chapter 17.078 regulates bluff development, sets standards for development that protect coastal bluff in Pismo Beach from erosion, and establishes a bluff and bluff setback zones where projects may be required to apply for conditional use permit and undergo review by the Planning Division to ensure erosion and other seismic and geologic hazards are minimized. Municipal Code Chapter 13.14 regulates discharge from septic tanks in the City by prohibiting dumping or discharging septic tank cleanings or any raw or chemically treated sewage from septic tanks. Chapter 13.28 regulates stormwater discharge and requires erosion and sediment controls when a project requiring a grading permit may create a source of pollution. Chapter 17.24.020 of the Municipal Code requires an archeological surface survey and contains unanticipated discovery measures for paleontological materials during construction.

Local Hazard Mitigation Plan/Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan In 2014 the City of Pismo Beach adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2014 HMP). The 2014 HMP is a plan to improve resiliency in the community by identifying natural hazards present in Pismo Beach, determining the community’s vulnerability to each hazard, and identifying development mitigation strategies to reduce vulnerability before emergency situations develop. The 2014 HMP identifies earthquakes (including fault rupture and liquefaction), floods, landslides, bluff erosion, and hazardous material releases as the most significant hazards present in the community, and includes goals, objectives, and mitigation to improve resiliency to these hazards.

In 2019 Pismo Beach participated in the development of the County of San Luis Obispo Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP; County of San Luis Obispo 2019). The County of San Luis Obispo HMP was originally developed in 2005, updated in 2011 and 2013, and underwent a comprehensive update in 2019. A significant change to the plan in 2019 was the inclusion of other County municipalities and special districts, broadening it from a County-specific plan to a multi- jurisdictional document prepared in coordination with the participating entities and input from the public. The County Multi-Jurisdictional HMP entails adopting, implementing, assigning responsibility, monitoring, and reviewing this hazard mitigation plan over time, to ensure the goals and objectives are being achieved and the plan remains a relevant document.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-13

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
This section describes the potential environmental impacts of the GP/LCP Update relevant to geology and soils. The impact analysis is based on conditions in the City outlined in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the GP/LCP Update (Appendix B), and the City’s current Safety Element, including topography, geologic and soil conditions, and seismic hazards, as described under Section

4.61, Setting. This analysis identifies potential impacts based on the predicted interaction between the affected environment and construction, operation, and maintenance activities related to development facilitated by the GP/LCP. This section describes impacts in terms of location, context, duration, and intensity.

Paleontological Resources Sensitivity
Paleontological sensitivity refers to the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically important fossils. Direct impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities, such as grading or trenching, cut into the geologic deposits within which fossils are buried and physically destroy the fossils. Since fossils are the remains of prehistoric animal and plant life, they are considered to be nonrenewable. Such impacts have the potential to be significant. Sensitivity is determined by rock type, past history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey.

The discovery of a vertebrate fossil locality is of greater significance than that of an invertebrate fossil locality, especially if it contains a microvertebrate assemblage. The recognition of new vertebrate fossil locations could provide important information on the geographical range of the taxa, their radiometric age, evolutionary characteristics, depositional environment, and other important scientific research questions. Vertebrate fossils are almost always significant because they occur more rarely than invertebrates or plants. Thus, geological units having the potential to contain vertebrate fossils are considered the most sensitive.

The (SVP) outlines in its Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources guidelines for categorizing paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within a project area (SVP 2010). The SVP describes sedimentary rock units as having a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (2010). This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrates or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. Significant paleontological resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils, which are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, diagnostically or stratigraphically, taxonomically, or regionally. The paleontological sensitivity of Pismo Beach has been evaluated according to the following SVP (2010) categories, which are presented below.

High Potential (Sensitivity)
Rock units from which significant vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources. These units include but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations which contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-14
lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. Sensitivity comprises both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, or stratigraphic data. Areas which contain potentially datable organic remains older than recent, including deposits associated with nests or middens, and areas that may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as significant. Full-time monitoring is typically recommended during any project-related ground disturbance in geologic units with high sensitivity.

Low Potential (Sensitivity)
Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous, but have not yielded fossils in the past or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented and understood taphonomic (processes affecting an organism following death, burial, and removal from the ground), phylogenetic species (evolutionary relationships among organisms), and habitat ecology.

Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist may allow determination that some areas or units have low potentials for yielding significant fossils prior to the start of construction. Generally, these units will be poorly represented by specimens in institutional collections and will not require protection or salvage operations.

Undetermined Potential (Sensitivity)
Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little information is available are considered to have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are required before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.

No Potential
Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources. For geologic units with no sensitivity, a paleontological monitor is not required.
b. Significance Thresholds
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. For the purposes of this EIR, implementation of the GP/LCP Update may have a significant adverse impact if it would do any of the following:

1. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault
b) Strong seismic ground shaking
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction d) Landslides

2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-15

3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse

4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property

5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater

6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
There are three soil types present within Pismo Beach city limits. The primary soil type are mollisols, with entisols and alfisols covering a smaller portion of land in eastern Pismo Beach (NRCS 1994).

None of these soils are considered expansive. Therefore, development under the GP/LCP Update would not result on development on expansive soils; impacts related to Threshold 4 would not occur and Threshold 4 is not analyzed further below.

This section does not analyze the exposure of new structures to geologic hazards because it is an impact of the environment on the project. The California Supreme Court held in a December 2015 opinion (BIA v. BAAQMD) that an analysis of impacts of the environment on a project is not required for CEQA compliance.
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1a: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Threshold 1b: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Threshold 1c: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Threshold 1d: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Threshold 3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Impact GEO-1 CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS UNDER THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD NOT EXACERBATE SEISMIC HAZARDS, BUT IMPROPERLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS MAY EXACERBATE LANDSLIDE RISK.

ADHERENCE TO REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE GOALS

AND POLICIES OF THE EXISTING SAFETY ELEMENT WOULD MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH FOLLOWING A SEISMIC EVENT, LANDSLIDE, LIQUEFACTION, OR OTHER GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.5.1, Setting, there are seven seismically active faults that have been identified in San Luis Obispo County, with potential to affect the City. Faults depicted in Figure 4.6-1, as well as unknown faults may also be capable of generating earthquakes.

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-16
Development under the GP/LCP Update would result in additional residential and nonresidential development in the City. While additional residents and employees and new structures would be exposed to the effects of existing seismic hazards, including fault rupture, seismic groundshaking, liquefaction, and landslides from local and regional earthquakes, but the project would not exacerbate the risk of seismic hazards occurring. The GP/LCP Update would encourage infill development and redevelopment of existing underutilized land uses, which would in some cases replace older buildings subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that would better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking.

Structures built on steep slopes could be exposed to an existing risk of landslide or if improperly constructed could exacerbate existing landslide conditions through improper weight distribution.

Potential structural damage and exposure of people to the risk of injury or death from structural failure would be minimized through required compliance with CBC engineering design and construction measures. Foundations and other structural support features are required to be designed to resist or absorb damaging forces from strong ground shaking and liquefaction.

In addition to mandatory compliance with CBC requirements, implementation of the following existing Safety Element policies would further reduce the potential for loss, injury, or death from seismic hazards by prohibiting development in areas of landslide risk or liquefaction without site- specific analysis, including areas of geologic and seismic hazards in the Hazardous Overlay and Protection Zone, and other relevant policies.
 S-2: New Development. New development within the City's jurisdiction shall be designed to withstand natural and man-made hazards to acceptable levels of risk by:

Adoption of the most recent safety requirements in the Building and Fire Code.

Using the planning and technical criteria presented in the Safety Element, as basic guidelines for all new public facilities.

Evaluating new development, particularly industrial, commercial or utility development, to ensure that construction or operation of the project will not cause hazardous conditions at an unacceptable level of risk.

Requiring new development to avoid portions of sites with high hazard levels.  S-10: Hazardous Overlay Zone. Land areas subject to hazards associated with steep slope, slope instability and drainage problems shall be included within the Hazardous Overlay and Protection Zone. Generally, all lands in excess of 10% slope shall be included.  S-11: Development Review in Hazardous Overlay Zone. Geologic reports may be required and shall be re- viewed by the appropriate decision-making body, prior to approval of any development permits for projects located within the Hazardous Overlay Zone.  S-13: Development Regulations.

The Technical Appendix should be made available to developers for review and use when proposing land development projects.

Development shall be prohibited in:

1. landslide risk areas without site-specific slope stability investigations.

2. areas of high potential liquefaction without site-specific analysis of liquefaction potential.  S-15: Brick and Masonry Non-Reinforced Buildings. The City shall adopt ordinance or other mitigation programs to reduce the hazards from brick or masonry non-reinforced buildings.

Such regulations shall require building strengthening or demolition.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-17
Implementation of these existing Safety Element policies would minimize risks associated with potential fault rupture, seismic shaking, and other geologic hazards in the City. Policy S-13 would prohibit new development in areas subject to liquefaction and/or landslide hazards unless a site- specific analysis is prepared. A detailed review of design and construction plans and incorporation of additional structural safety features would be required on a project-by-project basis, as necessary, for structures that would be located on steep slopes or in areas subject to seismic hazards such as extreme ground shaking or high risk liquefaction areas of the City. These policies would also ensure that adequate emergency response is available during seismic events and would educate the public on earthquake preparedness. Implementation of these goals and policies, in addition to compliance with applicable laws and regulations, would minimize the potential for loss, injury, or death following a seismic event. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 2: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact GEO-2 CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD INCLUDE

GROUND DISTURBANCE THAT WOULD RESULT IN LOOSE OR EXPOSED SOIL THAT COULD BE ERODED BY WIND OR DURING A STORM EVENT, RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS,

INCLUDING THE CLEAN WATER ACT, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE GP/LCP UPDATE

AND EXISTING SAFETY ELEMENT WOULD MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND LOSS OF TOPSOIL AND WOULD ENSURE THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

New development in Pismo Beach under the GP/LCP Update would involve construction activities such as stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving and other earth disturbing activities. These construction activities may result in loose and disturbed soils in the City, which can increase the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil.

Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under the Clean Water Act. Compliance with the permit requires that each project that disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, unless eligible for an erosivity waiver, file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require development of a SWPPP, which must describe the site, the facility, and BMPs to manage storm water runoff and to reduce soil erosion. More specifically, the SWPPP must describe erosion and sediment control BMPs, stormwater quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, and BMP maintenance responsibilities. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify storm water discharge from the construction activity and to identify, implement, and maintain erosion controls, where necessary.

Compliance with the Construction General Permit is enforced in Section 13.28 of the Municipal Code, which regulates storm water discharge in the City and requires erosion and sediment controls when a project requiring a grading permit may create a source of pollution. The City has also prepared the Stormwater Management Program, under which the City educates and involves the community in stormwater pollution prevention, regulates stormwater runoff from construction sites, investigates non-stormwater discharges, and reduces non-stormwater run-off from municipal operations. Individual projects within the City that disturb more than one acre are required to obtain NPDES coverage under the Construction General Permit. Chapter 17.078.050 of the

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-18
Municipal Code provides regulatory standards to ensure erosion associated with bluff development are minimized.

Adherence to the Clean Water Act NPDES permitting requirements would ensure that potential impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Implementation of GP/LCP Conservation and Open Space Element policies listed below would reduce the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil. In addition, implementation of the following existing Safety Element policies regarding bluff erosion would minimize erosion on bluff tops.  Policy COS-2.7: Minimization of Water Quality Impacts During Construction. Development shall minimize water quality impacts during construction by minimizing land disturbance and soil compaction, minimizing erosion and sedimentation, and minimizing the discharge of other pollutants resulting from construction activities.
 Action COS-2.7b: Minimize Land Disturbance During Construction. When reviewing development applications, the City shall require applicants to exemplify how the development minimizes land disturbance activities of construction (e.g., clearing, grading, cut-and-fill, and soil compaction), especially in erosive areas (including steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils), to avoid detrimental water quality impacts caused by increased erosion or sedimentation.
 Action COS-2.7c: Minimize Erosion and Sedimentation During Construction. Require that construction be conducted using measures to minimize soil erosion and off-site transport of sediment and debris originating at the construction site.  Action COS-4.10e: Erosion Control Measures. Any development within the ESHA buffer shall incorporate erosion control measures such as distillation basins and energy dissipaters, within grading plans as necessary.

Implementation of these GP/LCP Update goals and policies would ensure that construction projects implement erosion minimization measures control loss of topsoil. Implementation of these goals and policies, in addition to compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to stormwater, would minimize the potential for erosion and loss of topsoil during construction of projects within the City. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No additional policy-oriented mitigation would be required to reduce this impact. As individual development projects are proposed, focused, project-level environmental review may be required, which could result in the implementation of project-specific mitigation measures.

Threshold 5: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact GEO-3 NEW DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE GP/LCP UPDATE WOULD OCCUR WHERE

EXISTING SEWER SYSTEMS ARE IN PLACE, MINIMIZING THE NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO SOILS THAT ARE INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING SEPTIC TANKS OR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS.

The GP/LCP Update encourages growth management and development within Pismo Beach city limits. Focusing development in these areas would minimize encroachment into open space areas

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Final Environmental Impact Report 4.6-19
where wastewater infrastructure does not currently exist. In general, new development under the GP/LCP Update would occur where existing roads, water, and sewer systems are in place, minimizing the need to develop new wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact associated with soils that are incapable of supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 6: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact GEO-4 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

In accordance with SVP (2010) guidelines, Rincon determined the paleontological sensitivity within Pismo Beach based on a review of geologic maps, published literature and online paleontological databases. The results of this paleontological assessment indicate that the paleontological sensitivity within the Pismo Beach city limits range from low to high paleontological sensitivity, varying at the surface and at depth.

Quaternary young (late Holocene) beach sand (Qbs) and alluvial deposits (Qa) are too young to contain paleontological resources and are considered to have low paleontological sensitivity at the surface (SVP 2010). Although Holocene sedimentary deposits (e.g., Qa, Qbs) are generally too young to contain paleontological resources at the surface, these younger geologic units may preserve significant paleontological resources at unknown depths where the deposits exceed 5,000 years in age. Accurately assessing the boundaries between younger and older units within Pismo Beach generally requires site-specific stratigraphic data, some form of radiometric dating, or fossil analysis from nearby sites. Conservative estimates of the depth at which paleontologically sensitive units may occur reduces potential for impacts to paleontological resources. Based on the findings of Hall, the depths at which these younger Holocene units (i.e., Qa, Qbs) become old enough to yield fossils is highly variable, but is likely to occur at depths between 25 and 100 feet below ground surface (1973). Therefore, Quaternary young (late Holocene) beach sand (Qbs) and alluvial deposits (Qa) within the City are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity at depths below 25 feet (Dibblee and Minch 2006a,b; Hall 1973; SVP 2010).

Quaternary old (late to middle Pleistocene) alluvial deposits (Qoa), Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation (QTp), Pliocene Squire Sandstone (Tsw), early Pliocene to late Miocene Pismo Formation (Tp, Tps), and late to middle Miocene Monterey Formation (Tm, Tml) have yielded numerous scientifically significant paleontological resources in San Luis Obispo County and throughout California (Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021). Therefore, Quaternary old (late to middle Pleistocene) alluvial deposits (Qoa), Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation (QTp), Pliocene Squire Sandstone (Tsw), early Pliocene to late Miocene Pismo Formation (Tp, Tps), and late to middle Miocene Monterey Formation (Tm, Tml) are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity.

Pyroclastic-volcanic rocks of the Early to middle Miocene Obispo Formation, mapped within the central portion of Pismo Beach, have no paleontological sensitivity since the physical parameters of their formation are not conducive to fossil preservation. Artificial fill or disturbed sediments related

City of Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update

4.6-20
to prior development, consists of recently compacted sediments and as such, it is also assigned no paleontological sensitivity.

Paleontological resources may be encountered during any ground-disturbing activities associated with construction (e.g., grading, excavation, or other ground disturbing construction activity) in areas with high paleontological sensitivity. Construction activities may result in the destruction, damage, or loss of undiscovered scientifically important paleontological resources.

Adverse effects to paleontological resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project conditions and the characteristics of the proposed ground-disturbing activity. Ground-disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the GP/LCP Update, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses, have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface in previously undisturbed areas of high paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, development associated with the implementation of the proposed GP/LCP Update, including construction-related and earth- disturbing activities, could damage or destroy fossils in these geologic units, representing a potentially significant impact.

The following GP/LCP Update goals, policies, and actions are applicable to paleontological resources in Pismo Beach:

Goal COS-5: A community that celebrates and protects its historical, tribal cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources.
 Policy COS-5.3: Paleontological Resources. Protect paleontological resources during construction activities.
 Action COS-5.3a: Protect Paleontological Resources. The City shall have available a map that identifies the areas of the City underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity at the surface (i.e., Qoa, QTp, Tsqw, Tp, Tps, Tm, Tml) or high sensitivity at depths greater than 25 feet (Qa, Qbs). As part of the CEQA process for all new development projects, all sites located in areas with high paleontological sensitivity shall be fully investigated by a qualified paleontologist meeting the qualifications specified by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. While most sites are currently developed, appropriate protections shall be established to avoid impacts to paleontological resources with new development, with part of the review process including:
a) Locations within the City known to have a Qoa, QTp, Tsqw, Tp, Tps, Tm, Tml, Qa, Qbs soils shall be mapped as having high probability of occurrence of paleontological resources. Locations within the City known to have Qa, Qbs soils shall be mapped as having high probability of occurrence of paleontological resources at depths greater than 25 feet.
b) Specific recommendations prepared by the qualified paleontologist shall be incorporated into project approval including: avoidance of portions of sites containing resources, construction worker training, providing a paleontological monitor on site to observe excavations in soils with high paleontological sensitivity, and recovery and curation of paleontological resources encountered during construction.  Action COS-5.2d: Mitigation Plan. Where development may adversely impact paleontological resources as identified by the qualified paleontologist, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required pursuant to Section 30244 of the Coastal Act. Require