DRAFT Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Kolev Residence Project City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California

Transcription

1 DRAFT Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Kolev Residence Project City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: City of Pacifica Planning & Economic Development Department 1800 Francisco Boulevard Pacifica, CA Contact: Kathyrn Farbstein, Assistant Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Bishop Ranch Camino Ramon, Suite 460 San Ramon, CA Contact: Grant Gruber, Project Manager May 20, 2009

2

3 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction Purpose Project Location Environmental Setting Project Parcel Project Site Land Use Designations Project Description Primary Unit Second Unit Site Improvements Proposed Entitlements Required Discretionary Approvals Intended Uses of this Document Section 2: Environmental Checklist Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Section 3: Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc iii

4 Table of Contents City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 15. Transportation Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Section 4: List of Preparers Lead Agency Environmental Consultant Applicant s Consultants Section 5: References Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data A-1: Urbemis2007 Output A-2: Summary of Operational Greenhouse Gases Kolev Residence A-3: Kolev Residence GreenPoint Checklist Appendix B: Biological Resources B-1: Biological Resources Assessment B-2: Department of Fish and Game Notice of Lake or Streambed Alteration Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation Report LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Daily Construction Emissions Table 2: Total Construction Emissions Table 3: Daily Operational Emissions Table 4: Annual Operational Emissions Table 5: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 6: Kolev Residence Project Weekday Trip Generation LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map... 3 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map, Aerial Map... 5 Exhibit 3: Site Photographs...9 Exhibit 4: Site Plan Exhibit 5: Elevations Exhibit 6: Views of Surrounding Land Uses Exhibit 7: California Red-Legged Frog Critical Habitat iv Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

5 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The purpose of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts from implementation the Kolev Residence Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Pacifica (City) is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the project. The City has primary responsibility for approval or denial of the project. The intended use of this document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately prepare the project IS/MND and to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public. The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the characteristics of the project. Section 3 includes an environmental checklist giving an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation. Section 4 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, along with justification for the responses provided in the environmental checklist PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in the City of Pacifica, San Mateo County, California (Exhibit 1). The project site is located within a 6.3 acre-parcel (Assessor s Parcel No. APN ) located in the Linda Mar portion of Pacifica. The project site is generally bounded by an undeveloped, wooded slope (west), a single-family residence (north), a single-family residence (east), and an undeveloped, wooded slope (south) (Exhibit 2). The project site is located on the Montara Mountain, California, United States Geologic Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, Range 6 West, Township 4 South, Unsectioned (Latitude North; Longitude West) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING In the context of this IS/MND, the term project parcel refers to the entire 6.3-acre parcel owned by the project applicant, and the term project site encompasses the area within the parcel that would be disturbed by the proposed project, which totals approximately 10,000 square feet. The limits of both the project parcel and project site are shown on Exhibit Project Parcel The project parcel is located adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood on Perez Drive in the Linda Mar area of Pacifica. The project vicinity is characterized by low-density, detached, singlefamily residential properties in a small valley flanked by the wooded slopes of San Pedro Mountain. Michael Brandman Associates 1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

6

7

8

9

10

11 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction The project parcel contains undeveloped, wooded, and cleared sloping land. The project parcel is on the northeast-facing slope of San Pedro Mountain, with an elevation ranging between 200 and 800 feet above mean sea level. Vegetation consists of eucalyptus trees mixed with a native broad-leaved woodland understory and limited riparian scrub. The topography is characterized by a northeastfacing hillside with an average slope of 29 percent. The parcel contains a flat area along the north property boundary at the base of the hillside ranging from 40 to 70 feet in width Project Site The project site occupies approximately 10,000 square feet within the northeastern portion of the project parcel. The project site consists of a cleared area (i.e., vacant, and containing only minor vegetation and several tree stumps) at the base of the slope with an elevation ranging between 200 and 250 feet above mean sea level. The project site borders the following developed land uses: 1600 Perez Drive (single-family dwelling), the Perez Drive cul-de-sac, 1204 Springwood Way (a singlefamily dwelling), and 1212 Oakwood Court (a single-family dwelling). A small ephemeral drainage extends along the east project site boundary with 1204 Springwood Way and the Perez Drive cul-de-sac. The drainage enters a plastic culvert that partially extends onto the project site from the neighboring property (1600 Perez Drive). Riparian scrub vegetation is located along the drainage. At the time of this writing, a portion of the drainage adjacent to the Perez Drive cul-de-sac is currently covered by plywood to allow pedestrian access to the project parcel. Photographs of the project site are provided in Exhibit Land Use Designations The project parcel is designated both Very Low Density Residential and Open Space Residential by the General Plan, with the project site designated as Very Low Density Residential. The entire project parcel is zoned Planned Development/Hillside Preservation District overlay by the Zoning Ordinance. The Hillside Preservation District overlay limits the amount of area that can be disturbed within a parcel based on a slope calculation. Based on the average slope gradient of 29 percent, the Hillside Preservation District Ordinance allows a maximum of percent or 43,826 square feet of the parcel to be disturbed PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant (Emil Kolev) is seeking to develop a single-family residence (primary unit), a second dwelling unit over a garage (second unit), and associated site improvements on the project site Primary Unit The main building would total 4,725 square feet and would contain three-levels: a garage/basement (1,070 square feet), a ground floor (2,245 square feet), and a second floor/attic (1,410 square feet). Michael Brandman Associates 7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

12 Introduction City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration The living quarters would occupy the ground floor; the second floor/attic space is proposed to remain unfinished. The garage/basement would contain a tandem garage, a mechanical room, and storage space. A patio would be located in the rear of the main building. The peak of the main building would be 35 feet above grade. 8 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

13

14

15 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction Second Unit The second unit would total 1,877 square feet and contain two levels: a garage/basement (1,129 square feet) and ground floor (748 square feet). The ground floor would contain living quarters, and the garage/basement would contain a three-car garage. A patio would be located in the rear of the second unit. The roofline of the second dwelling unit would be 24 feet above grade Site Improvements A driveway would link the two garages with the Perez Drive cul-de-sac. The driveway would also provide two uncovered parking spaces. The driveway would consist of pervious interlocking pavers totaling 4,500 square feet. As part of the construction of the driveway, a 25-lineal-foot segment of the ephemeral drainage would be culverted in a corrugated plastic pipe. The culvert would adjoin the existing corrugated plastic pipe culvert located within the 1600 Perez Drive property and be of similar diameter. The building footprints, patios, and walkways would have a total impervious surface coverage of 5,650 square feet. Landscaping would occupy 2,600 square feet. In total, the area of disturbance would be 8,250 square feet. However, for the purposes of providing a conservative worst-case analysis, this IS/MND will assume that the area of disturbance is 10,000 square feet or 0.23 acre. The utility connections would consist of potable water, sewer, electrical, natural gas, and telephone. All of these utilities exist within the Perez Drive right-of-way. Earthwork activities will require 979 cubic yards of soil to be cut. No fill will be required. The site plan is provided in Exhibit 4. Building elevations are shown in Exhibit Proposed Entitlements The project parcel is zoned Planned Development/Hillside Preservation District overlay by the Pacifica Zoning Ordinance. The Planned Development zone requires the adoption of a development plan and specific plan for new development. The Zoning Ordinance states that the allowable uses within the Planned Development zoning district are established by the adopted development plan and specific plan; therefore, the adoption of these plans is considered a rezoning REQUIRED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS The proposed project requires the following discretionary approvals from the City of Pacifica: Development Plan (DP-72-09) Rezone (RZ ) Specific Plan (SP ) Michael Brandman Associates 11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

16

17

18

19

20

21 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Introduction In addition, the proposed project will require approvals from the following responsible and trustee agencies: United States Army Corps of Engineers (404 Permit) California Department of Fish and Game (1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Quality Certification) INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT This IS/MND has been prepared to determine the appropriate scope and level of detail required in completing the environmental analysis for the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for 30 days, during which period comments concerning the analysis contained in the IS/MND should be sent to: Kathyrn Farbstein, Assistant Planner City of Pacifica Planning & Economic Development Department 1800 Francisco Boulevard Pacifica, CA Phone: Fax: (650) farbsteink@ci.pacifica.ca.us Michael Brandman Associates 17 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

22

23 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Environmental Issues 1. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 2. Agriculture Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Michael Brandman Associates 19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

24 Environmental Checklist City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 4. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

25 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 6. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in onor off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Michael Brandman Associates 21 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

26 Environmental Checklist City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 22 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

27 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Michael Brandman Associates 23 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

28 Environmental Checklist City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. Land Use Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? 10. Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 11. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 24 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

29 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Environmental Issues 12. Population and Housing Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 13. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire Protection? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? 14. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15. Transportation Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Michael Brandman Associates 25 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

30 Environmental Checklist City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Issues c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 16. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

31 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Land Use Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation Utilities and Services Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Michael Brandman Associates 27 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

32

33 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist Environmental Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signed Date May 20, 2009 Grant Gruber, Project Manager Michael Brandman Associates 29 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

34

35 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation SECTION 3: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. AESTHETICS, LIGHT, AND GLARE Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The 6.3-acre parcel that contains the project site is located at the end of the Perez Drive cul-de-sac, near the end of a small valley. The most visible parts of the parcel are the wooded slopes associated with San Pedro Mountain, which for the purposes of this analysis will be considered a scenic vista. The wooded slopes extend upward more than 600 feet above the elevation of the project site. The proposed project would result in disturbance to approximately 0.23 acre of the parcel near the Perez Drive cul-de-sac, which has been cleared and is largely screened from view from surrounding properties by vegetation. The balance of the parcel, including the wooded slopes, would not be disturbed; therefore, no substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Between the San Francisco County line and south of the Half Moon Bay city limits, State Route 1 (SR-1) is designated as an eligible not officially designated state scenic highway. The project site is not visible from SR-1 because of intervening topography associated with San Pedro Mountain. Therefore, this condition precludes the possibility of significant impacts to a state scenic highway. No impacts would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the development of a single-family residence, a second unit, and associated site improvements on 0.23 acre of the project parcel. The project site is cleared and is located adjacent to the Perez Drive cul-de-sac and 1600 Perez Drive, which contains an existing singlefamily residence. Michael Brandman Associates 31 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

36 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration The elevations of the proposed primary single-family residence and second unit are depicted in Exhibit 5. The buildings are characterized by contemporary design features such as gables, dormers, and peaked roofs that are consistent in design with other residences in the neighborhood. The peak of the primary unit would be 35 feet above grade and the roofline of the second unit would be 24 feet above grade, both of which are similar in height to other residences in the neighborhood. The primary single-family residence would have a footprint of 2,245 square feet and the second unit would have a footprint of 1,129 square feet, both of which are proportional in scale to other residences in the neighborhood. Exhibit 6 depicts views of the surrounding land uses from the project site. As shown in the exhibit, vegetation partially or mostly screens views of neighboring residences from the project site. The 1600 Perez Drive residence, which shares the northern property line with the project site, would have partial views of the proposed project. The applicant intends to plant landscaping along the property line that would largely screen views of the proposed project from 1600 Perez Drive when fully mature. Other neighboring residences 1204 Springwood Way and 1212 Oakwood Court would have mostly obstructed views of the proposed project because of intervening vegetation. The proposed project would not be visible or would be barely visible from other residences in the neighborhood. Finally, as noted above in Item 1a, the proposed project would disturb 0.23 acre of the 6.3-acre parcel. The most visible portions of the project parcel, the wooded slopes associated with San Pedro Mountain, would not be disturbed; therefore, the most significant visual features in the project vicinity would remain unchanged. In summary, the proposed project would develop a residential use of similar character and scale to surrounding uses in the project vicinity. The proposed project would be visible only to neighboring properties and would implement screening measures to soften visual impacts. The proposed project would alter only a small portion of the 6.3-acre parcel and would not affect the wooded slopes of San Pedro Mountain. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. As shown in Exhibit 5, the proposed project s exterior lighting would be limited to small-scale fixtures associated with stairways, 32 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

37 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation garage entrances, patios, and other similar areas. Such lighting fixtures are of low intensity and similar in nature to others in the neighborhood. Furthermore, because Michael Brandman Associates 33 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

38

39

40

41 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation the proposed project would be largely screened from view from other parts of the neighborhood, its exterior lighting fixtures would not be visible or only barely visible. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. There are no active agricultural uses on the project parcel. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps the project parcel as Urban/Built Up Land and Other Land, which are nonagricultural designations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No impacts would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project parcel is zoned Planned Development/Hillside Preservation District overlay, which is a non-agricultural zoning designation. The proposed project would require re-zoning to amend the Planned Development designation to allow the development of the proposed structures. The project parcel does not contain any agricultural land uses and, therefore, is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or with a Williamson Act Contract. No impacts would occur. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any agricultural land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to create changes Michael Brandman Associates 37 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

42 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in the existing environment that would create pressures to convert farmland to a nonagricultural use. No impacts would occur. 3. AIR QUALITY Michael Brandman Associates performed air quality modeling for the proposed project. The air quality modeling data is provided in Appendix A. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Pacifica is located along the western edge of the San Francisco Bay Area air basin and is affected by persistent and frequent strong winds from the Pacific Ocean. The City is also within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy is the regional air quality management plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. The 2005 Ozone Strategy accounts for projections of population growth provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments and vehicle miles traveled provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and it identifies strategies to bring regional emissions into compliance with federal and state air quality standards. As discussed in the items below (3b and 3d), the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for construction and operational emissions; therefore, it would not contribute to an air quality violation. As discussed further in Item 9b, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Pacifica General Plan s projections about future land use changes within the city limit. Because the General Plan is consistent with the 2005 Ozone Strategy, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, no conflicts with the 2005 Ozone Strategy would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. This impact assesses the proposed project s emissions of criteria pollutants during construction and operation, and greenhouse gas emissions. Each is discussed separately. 38 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

43 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with construction of the residences would emit criteria pollutant emissions most notably, fine particulate matter (PM 10 ). PM 10 emissions can result from a variety of construction activities, including excavation, grading, vehicle travel on paved and unpaved surfaces, and vehicle and equipment exhaust. BAAQMD is concerned that construction-related emissions can cause substantial increases in localized concentrations of PM 10 and can lead to adverse health effects, as well as to nuisance concerns such as reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. Historically, BAAQMD had identified a set of feasible PM 10 control measures for construction activities that were considered the determining factor of significance for construction activities. However, BAAQMD is increasingly recognizing the importance of PM 10 and PM 2.5 from construction activities and the emissions of carbon monoxide and ozone precursors from construction equipment. Therefore, BAAQMD no longer recommends that quantification of construction emissions is not necessary. Because BAAQMD has not yet officially set specific thresholds of significance for construction activities but has indicated its preference for air quality analyses to assign it greater importance, this analysis will use the daily and annual thresholds established by the BAAQMD for operational emissions. Therefore, an air quality impact is considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would generate construction-related emissions that exceed 80 pounds per day for the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) or oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), or PM 10. In addition, the air quality impact is considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would generate construction-related emissions that exceed 15 total tons for the ozone precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) or oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), or PM 10. Construction emissions were modeled using URBEMIS2007 version The default construction phases, phase length, and construction equipment were used. The emissions estimate includes the use of low-voc paints, consistent with the project s design. When reviewing the URBEMIS printouts in the appendices, please note that the URBEMIS program lists any measure that reduces emissions to be mitigation regardless if the measure is part of the project design or is truly considered mitigation by CEQA standards. Results of the emissions analysis are provided in Table 1 and Table 2. Emissions of PM 2.5 are provided below for informational purposes only. As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, construction emissions are not anticipated to exceed the BAAQMD s Michael Brandman Associates 39 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

44 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration operational thresholds. Nonetheless, there is always the possibility of short-term dust episodes causing elevated localized levels of particulate matter. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is proposed that would require the implementation of standard construction dust control measures. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Table 1: Daily Construction Emissions Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Year Phase ROG NO x PM 10 PM Fine Grading Asphalt Building Maximum Daily Emissions* Building Architectural Coating Maximum Daily Emissions* Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No Notes: * The maximum daily emissions refer to the maximum emissions that would occur on one day. Not all phases will be occurring concurrently; therefore, the maximum daily emissions are not necessarily a summation of the daily emission rates of all phases. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Table 2: Total Construction Emissions Construction Emissions (tons/year) Year Phase ROG NO x PM 10 PM Fine Grading Asphalt Building Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

45 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Construction Emissions (tons/year) Year Phase ROG NO x PM 10 PM Building Architectural Coating Total Emissions Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No Source: Michael Brandman Associates, MM AIR-1 During construction, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with nontoxic stabilizers or dust palliatives. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction site. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to expose stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph). Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. Michael Brandman Associates 41 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

46 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Operational emissions for the proposed project would be caused primarily by vehicle trip associated with the two residences. The project is expected to result in an additional 17 daily trips (refer to Table 6). Because of the limited number of additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, operational emissions are not expected to exceed the BAAQMD emissions thresholds. However, the project s operational emissions were estimated using the URBEMIS program. The project is designed to exceed California s Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 30 percent (refer to the discussion of greenhouse gas emissions below). Therefore, the energy efficiency measure was incorporated into the emissions estimate. Table 3 and Table 4 contain the daily and annual modeling output, respectively. As with construction emissions, the estimate output of PM 2.5 is provided for informational purposes. Operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Table 3: Daily Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions (tons/year) ROG NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Area Emissions Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Table 4: Annual Operational Emissions Emissions Source Emissions (tons/year) ROG NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Area Emissions Operational Emissions Annual Total Threshold Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

47 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Emissions Source Emissions (tons/year) ROG NO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Significant Impact? No No No No Source: Michael Brandman Associates, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Constituent gases of the Earth s atmosphere, called atmospheric greenhouse gases, play a critical role in the Earth s radiation budget by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth s surface, which would otherwise have escaped into space. This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic emissions of these greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Prominent greenhouse gases contributing to this process include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), among others. Global warming is a planet-wide effect, and greenhouse gases are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Worldwide, California is the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO 2 and is responsible for approximately 2 percent of the world s CO 2 emissions. In 2004, California produced 492 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO 2 e). The methodology to establish an appropriate baseline, to develop a project-level inventory, or to evaluate the significance of greenhouse gas emission changes has not yet been formalized, which would allow for an appropriate analysis of the impact of the project on climate change. The BAAQMD has not developed any significance thresholds for greenhouse gases. This is because greenhouse gases, especially CO 2, do not pose any health risks at ambient concentrations. The impacts associated with greenhouse gases are long-term climatic changes, which are beyond the regulatory purview of BAAQMD. However, automobiles are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the quantity of emissions from automobiles is directly correlated with the vehicular activity. The project would generate emissions of (1) CO 2, primarily in the form of vehicle exhaust and in the consumption of natural gas for heating; (2) some methane gas from vehicle emissions and a negligible amount from natural gas combustion; and (3) small amounts of nitrous oxide from vehicular emissions and a negligible amount from natural gas combustion. Michael Brandman Associates 43 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

48 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration The proposed project s greenhouse gas emissions would be negligible, since operational and maintenance activities at the site would consist of those activities associated with residential uses. Lighting features associated with the proposed project would be interior and small exterior fixtures associated with both structures. As part of the application submittal, the project applicant evaluated the proposed project against the Build It Green single-family residential checklist. The checklist is provided in Appendix A, and the relevant greenhouse gas reduction features are listed below: 80 percent minimum diversion of construction waste (including green waste) Use of 25 percent minimum recycled content aggregate A minimum of 75 percent of landscaping plants to be drought-tolerant, native species High-efficiency irrigation system with low-flow drip, bubblers, or low-flow sprinklers, and smart controller Use of low-emitting, 75 percent recycled content insulation Hot water pipe insulation High efficiency toilets Effective ductwork Sealed combustion units Whole house fan Pre-plumb for solar hot water heating Installation of wiring conduit for future photovoltaic solar installation and provision of 200 square feet of south-facing roof Building is to be 30 percent more energy-efficient than Title 24 requirements Energy Star appliances such as dishwasher, clothes washer, and refrigerator The project s estimated greenhouse gas emissions inventory is provided below in Table 5. The analysis incorporates the expected energy efficiency of the residence, and the associated reduction in electricity consumption. However, it is not possible at the time of this writing to calculate the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of all of the above-listed measures. Regardless, because of the limited operational activities associated with the proposed project, there would be no significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 44 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

49 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Table 5: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source Carbon Dioxide Emissions (tons/year) Nitrous Oxide Methane Metric Tons CO 2 e Motor Vehicles Natural Gas Indirect Electricity Hearth Landscape Tons/Year Total Source: Michael Brandman Associates, c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines establish that a project s cumulative air quality impacts should be evaluated on the basis of three criteria: (1) project-level emissions, (2) consistency of the project with the local general plan or land use plan, and (3) consistency with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. As discussed in Item 3b, project emissions would not exceed BAAQMD emissions thresholds; therefore, no significant project-level air quality impacts would occur. As discussed in Items 3a and 9b, the proposed project is consistent with both the City of Pacifica General Plan and the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the development of a primary single-family residence, a second unit, and associated site improvements. The proposed residential uses would be considered a sensitive receptor; however, it would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations because no such sources exist in the project vicinity (e.g., industrial uses). As discussed in Item 3b), the proposed project s construction and operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the proposed project would not involve regular Michael Brandman Associates 45 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

50 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration truck deliveries; consequently, surrounding sensitive receptors would not be exposed to diesel particulate matter. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentration. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would develop a primary single-family residence, a second unit, and associated site improvements. Sources of objectionable odors include dairies, feedlots, landfills/composting facilities, wastewater treatment plants, and other agricultural and industrial uses. Residential uses are not considered sources of objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Zander Associates prepared a Biological Resources Assessment, dated December 2008, that evaluated potential biological resources impacts. The assessment is contained in its entirety in Appendix B. The findings of the assessment are summarized below. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The Biological Resources Assessment evaluated the potential for special-status plant and animal species to occur on the project site. The findings of the assessment are provided below. Special-Status Plants Based on the vegetation and habitat characteristics of the project site, there are six special-status plant species that were determined to have potential to occur but were not identifiable at the time of the site visit in December These species are the bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B species; bristly sedge (Carex comosa), a CNPS List 2 species; Franciscan thistle (Cirsium andrewsii), a CNPS List 1B species; Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea), a CNPS List 1B species; coast lily (Lilium maritimum), a CNPS List 1B species; and Dudley s lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi), a CNPS List 1B species and a state listed rare species. Accordingly, mitigation is proposed requiring that a qualified biologist conduct a spring survey of the project site to 46 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

51 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation determine the presence or absence of these species. If any species are found to be present in areas where construction will occur, the biologist will implement an onsite salvage and relocation program. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM BIO-1 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey in the months of May or June for the fiddleneck, bristly sedge, Franciscan thistle, Diablo helianthella, coast lily, Dudley s lousewort, and possibly other spring-blooming species. If any of these species are found within the project work area and cannot be avoided, the biologist shall determine and implement an appropriate salvage and relocation program (e.g., translocation/seed collection) prior to grading activities so that the species can be established into another area of suitable habitat on the property. The affected species shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, in extent of occupied area and plant density, to that of the affected population. Success of the re-establishment effort shall be determined through a two-year monitoring program, whereby the relocation site is annually monitored in the spring, the extent of occupied area and density of the re-established population is measured, and any site management actions needed for establishment success are noted. A letter detailing the monitoring results will be submitted to the City and to other interested agencies by August 1 of each monitoring year. If the reestablishment effort fails to meet the success targets after the two-year monitoring period, a revised approach or timeline shall be determined by the City in consultation with the monitoring biologist, the property owner and other interested agencies. The above measures shall be detailed in a Salvage and Relocation Program, which shall specify the location and method for plant re-establishment, the target extent of occupied area and plant density of the re-established population (assuming a 1:1 replacement ratio), the protocol for a two-year monitoring program, and a suggested remedial plan in the event that the re-establishment effort fails to meet the success criteria after the two-year period. California Red-Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake The Biological Resources Assessment indicated that the project site provides suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), a federally threatened species and a state species of special concern, and the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), a federally and state listed endangered species. However, the assessment indicated that the project site does not provide suitable breeding habitat for either species and, furthermore, the likelihood of these Michael Brandman Associates 47 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

52 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration species using the onsite drainages as dispersal corridors is very low because of the absence of breeding habitat close to the site. Nonetheless, because some work will be required along and within the east drainage, particularly for the installation of 25 feet of culvert, mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of various measures to further minimize impacts to potential habitat for these species. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. A portion of the 6.3-acre parcel is within defined critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, critical habitat refers to specific geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and may require special management considerations. These areas do not necessarily have to be occupied by the species at the time of designation. A designation does not set up a preserve or refuge and only applies to situations where federal funding or a federal permit is involved. As shown in Exhibit 7, this critical habitat is designated in the upper elevations of the parcel, more than 100 feet from the edge of the nearest point of project disturbance. Given the distance and the difference in elevation, there is no potential for construction activities associated with the proposed project to impact the designated critical habitat. MM BIO-2 During construction, the following measures shall be implemented to minimize adverse impacts on the California red-legged frog or San Francisco garter snake: Restrict work within and directly adjacent to the east drainage channel to the driest part of the year (between July 1 and October 15), outside of the breeding season when moisture conditions in ephemeral drainages are least attractive for red-legged frog dispersal. During the installation of the entrance road culvert, limit the removal of riparian vegetation associated with the drainage channel to only the area required for the accommodation of the culvert and road. Except for the installation of the culvert, completely avoid removal of riparian vegetation and establish an appropriate work boundary (e.g., with orange construction fencing) from both drainages during site development. 48 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

53

54

55 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat The Biological Resources Assessment indicated that the project site provides suitable habitat for the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a state species of special concern. The assessment found that there are no woodrat nests within the development footprint. However, the assessment stated that if the cleared vegetation is allowed to grow back, there is potential that a woodrat could establish a new nest in the project area, or could establish a nest within the riparian scrub vegetation next to the proposed location for the entrance road culvert. Accordingly, mitigation is proposed requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a predisturbance survey of the project site to determine the presence or absence of this species. If any woodrat nests are found to be present in areas where construction will occur, a buffer must be established around them. If adult woodrats remain onsite, they would be live-trapped and relocated, along with the stick nests. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM BIO-3 Prior to grading activities or expanded vegetation clearing on the site, a qualified biologist shall survey for active San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within the work footprint plus a 100-foot buffer, following California Department of Fish and Game survey protocol. If active nests are present in the area of disturbance, the biologist shall determine appropriate setbacks and other measures to avoid direct impacts to these animals. The qualified biologist shall live-trap and relocate any adults that remain in the area either during or after breeding season to suitable nearby habitat. All stick nests shall be relocated or dismantled after the site has been cleared of woodrats to prevent reoccupation. Intact nests or stick nest materials shall be placed into suitable nearby habitat for use by the species. Monarch Butterfly The Biological Resources Assessment concluded that no significant eucalyptus stands will be removed as part of the proposed project; therefore, no monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) colonies or roosting habitat would be impacted. Impacts would be less than significant. Raptors, Migratory Birds and Bats Approximately 60 square feet of riparian scrub vegetation would be removed as part of the installation of the culvert. This vegetation includes trees and shrubs suitable for nesting or roosting by raptors, migratory birds, and bats. Therefore, mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of standard bird and bat surveys during the Michael Brandman Associates 51 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

56 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration nesting season. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM BIO-4 If tree removal, site clearing, and grading occur between January 15 and August 1, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active raptors, migratory birds, and bats. If active nests are found and the biologist determines that the proposed activities would remove the nest or have the potential to cause abandonment, then an appropriate setback should be established by the biologist around the nest. Tree removal, clearing, grading, and construction activities within the setback should be avoided until the young have fledged, as determined through monitoring of the nest. Once the young have fledged, activities can resume within the setback. If tree removal, site clearing and grading are initiated after August 1 and before January 15 (outside of the typical maternity roosting season for bats and nesting season for raptors and migratory birds), then pre-construction surveys for active nests should not be necessary. b) 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 California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project would involve culverting approximately 25 lineal feet of the ephemeral stream adjacent to the eastern property line to allow for vehicular access to the project site. Culverting activities would impact the stream bed, stream bank, and associated vegetation. Accordingly, the proposed culvert would be subject to the requirements of Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 is proposed requiring the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). A provision in the mitigation measure requires the project applicant to offset the loss of impacted riparian habitat at a ratio of no less than 1:1 through purchase of credits at a CDFG-approved mitigation bank or through restoration or preservation of riparian habitat at a ratio and location acceptable to CDFG. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-6 is proposed requiring the installation of construction fencing along the ephemeral drainage to maintain its integrity. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to riparian habitat would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Note that the applicant has received approval from CDFG to culvert the drainage. The documentation is contained in Appendix B. 52 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

57 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation MM BIO-5 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall file a notification for a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement permit from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for impacts to the ephemeral stream. If the CDFG determines that a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement permit is required, impacted riparian habitat shall be offset through purchase of credits at a CDFG-approved mitigation bank in the region or restoration or preservation of riparian habitat at a location comparable to existing lost habitat and acceptable to the CDFG and at no less than a 1:1 ratio. MM BIO-6 Prior to the commencement of construction activities, orange construction fencing shall be erected around the ephemeral drainage to maintain the integrity of the riparian corridor. The fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction activities. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project would involve culverting approximately 25 lineal feet of the ephemeral stream adjacent to the eastern property line to allow for vehicular access to the project site. The stream is classified as a water of the United States and, therefore, is under jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Accordingly, the proposed culvert would be subject to the requirements of Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 is proposed requiring the applicant to obtain a Section 404 from the USACE. A provision in the mitigation measure requires the project applicant to offset the loss of impacted riparian habitat at a ratio of no less than 1:1 through purchase of credits at a USACE-approved mitigation bank or through restoration or preservation of riparian habitat at a ratio and location acceptable to the USACE. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to jurisdictional features would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Note that the project applicant consulted with USACE about potential impacts on the ephemeral drainage. The agency stated to the applicant that with the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures it would issue a 404 permit. MM BIO-7 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall obtain a 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Michael Brandman Associates 53 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

58 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration impacts to the ephemeral stream, if required. Impacted jurisdictional features shall be offset through purchase of credits at a USACE-approved mitigation bank or restoration or preservation of jurisdictional features at a minimum 1:1 ratio at a location comparable to existing lost features and acceptable to the USACE. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site borders existing developed residential uses on the northern and eastern sides. The proposed structures and improvements would be located adjacent to the existing developed uses and the Perez Drive cul-de-sac. No structures or improvements are proposed in the wooded sloping areas of the project site. The proposed project would culvert a small portion of the steam that parallels the eastern boundary of the project site. This stream does not support fish; therefore, culverting it would not adversely affect fish movement. The culvert would be approximately 3 feet in diameter, which is large enough to allow movement of amphibians and small mammals. Given these project characteristics, the proposed project would not be expected to have adverse impacts on fish or wildlife movement. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local applicable policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City of Pacifica defines a heritage tree as any tree, exclusive of eucalyptus, which has a trunk with a circumference of 50 inches or more, approximately 16 inches in diameter or more, when measured 2 feet above natural grade. In addition, the City Council may designate any tree or grove of trees of special historical, environmental, or aesthetic value as a Heritage Tree. There are no trees within the project site that meets the City s definition of a heritage tree. There are a few trees that are adjacent to the building site that are within the area of cleared vegetation, but none of these trees meets the definition of a heritage tree. These trees include a few eucalyptus, which are exempt from heritage tree status; and a few toyon and wax myrtles, all of which have trunks less than 16 inches 54 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

59 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation in diameter. Therefore, no conflicts with locally adopted biological policies or ordinances would occur. No impacts would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located in any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Plan; or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. This condition precludes the possibility of impacts; therefore, no impacts would occur. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? No Impact. The project site is undeveloped and does not contain any structures. There are no known National Register or California State Historic Resources properties, California Historical landmarks, or California Points of Historic interest on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an adverse change in the significant of a historical resource. No impacts would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. No known prehistoric archaeological resources exist on the project site; thus, no archaeological resources would be expected to be encountered during construction activities associated with the proposed project. However, it is possible that subsurface earthwork activities may encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. The implementation of standard cultural resource construction mitigation (Mitigation Measure CUL-1) would ensure that this impact is less than significant. MM CUL-1 If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 50-foot radius of the find shall cease. The project sponsor shall then obtain a qualified archaeological consultant who shall examine any newly found materials, assess their significance, and perform appropriate exploratory and investigative procedures to determine and implement the best course Michael Brandman Associates 55 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

60 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure that there are no significant adverse impacts associated with cultural resources on the site. All recommendations of the archaeologist shall be followed. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, wood, and shell artifacts; fossils; and features including hearths, structural remains, and historic dumpsites. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. No known paleontological resources or unique geologic features exist on the site. However, it is possible that subsurface earthwork activities may encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources. The implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that this impact is less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. No known human remains are interred on the site. However, it is possible that subsurface earthwork activities may encounter previously undiscovered human remains or burial sites. The implementation of standard human remains construction mitigation (Mitigation Measure CUL-2) would ensure that this impact is less than significant. MM CUL-2 If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities within the project area, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the San Mateo County Coroner s office shall be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, both the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and any identified descendants shall be notified by the coroner and recommendations for treatment solicited (CEQA Guidelines Section ; Health and Safety Code Section ; Public Resources Code Sections and ). 56 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

61 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation 6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY The analysis in this section is based on the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers, dated September The report is provided in its entirety in Appendix C. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The Geotechnical Site Investigation indicated that there are no active faults located within the project site, which precludes the possibility of fault rupture impacts. No impacts would occur. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project site is 1.5 miles from the San Gregorio Fault and 4.0 miles from the San Andreas Fault. The Geotechnical Investigation indicated that the proposed project may be exposed to strong ground shaking during a seismic event and recommended that all applicable California Building Standards Code requirements be incorporated into the project design. This recommendation has been incorporated as Mitigation Measure GEO-1. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit for the residence, the project applicant shall submit plans to the City of Pacifica for review and approval demonstrating project compliance with the 2007 California Building Standards Code seismic requirements and the recommendations of the project-level Geotechnical Investigation. All soil engineering recommendations and structural foundations shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. All onsite soil engineering activities shall be conducted under the supervision of a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist. Michael Brandman Associates 57 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

62 Environmental Evaluation iii) City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction depends on characteristics including soil density, particle size distribution, and position of the groundwater table. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the proposed project has a low susceptibility to seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction hazards because onsite soils consist of a relatively thin layer of plastic clay overlying bedrock. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to significant hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant. iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation stated that no evidence of slope instability was observed during site reconnaissance. Furthermore, the slopes above the location of the proposed residence and second unit are wooded with mature trees, which suggests that they have a high degree of stability because of the root systems associated with such trees. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to significant hazards associated with landsliding. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Construction activities associated with the site would include removal of vegetation, excavation, and grading. Although the proposed project would not be subject to federal or state pollution prevention requirements (including erosion control) associated with construction activities because less than 1 acre would be disturbed, there is still the potential for erosion to occur. As such, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is proposed requiring the implementation of standard stormwater pollution prevention measures to prevent erosion. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation indicated that the soils underlying the project site consist of clayey soils overlying sandstone and shale bedrock. These soil characteristics are indicative of stable underlying geologic units and soils. Therefore, the proposed project would not be located on unstable geologic 58 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

63 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation units or soils susceptible to landsliding, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Project plans indicate that earthwork activities will involve substantial cut (i.e., removal) of soils to create building pads for the two structures. Cut activities would remove surface soils, including any that have expansive properties. Building pads would be soil engineered to create a stable footing for structures. Therefore, these project design features would ensure that the proposed project would not be exposed to hazards associated with expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project would be served by sewer; thus, it would not include the use of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. No impacts would occur. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the development of a single-family residence, a second unit, and associated site improvements. These activities would not require the use, storage, transport, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is undeveloped and has not supported land uses that could have resulted in onsite contamination. The proposed project consists of the development of a single-family residence, a second unit, and associated site improvements. These activities do not have the potential to create a Michael Brandman Associates 59 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

64 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration significant hazard to human health or the environment from the accidental release of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools located within 0.25 mile of the proposed project. The closest school to the project site is Alma Heights Christian Academy at 1030 Linda Mar Boulevard, which is approximately 1 mile from the project site. This distance precludes the proposed project exposing schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site to hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is undeveloped and has not supported past uses associated with hazardous materials (e.g., industrial uses). A search of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor database indicated that the project parcel was not listed on any hazardous materials site databases. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not expose the public or environment to hazardous materials associated with current or past uses of the project parcel. No impacts would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site, Half Moon Bay Airport, is located approximately 3.5 miles to the south. The project site is not within the boundaries of the Half Moon Bay Airport land use plan or influence area. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project creating a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity. This condition precludes the possibility of the project resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impacts would occur. 60 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

65 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the development of a single-family residence, a second unit, and associated site improvements. The project site is located at the end of the Perez Drive cul-de-sac and, therefore, does not have the potential to physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation from other properties on the street. Moreover, the proposed project does not propose any features that would impair emergency response or evacuation (e.g., permanent road closures). Impacts would be less than significant. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project parcel contains densely wooded slopes associated with San Pedro Mountain, and the proposed project would abut the urban wildland. Accordingly, mitigation is proposed requiring the project applicant to implement all applicable fire prevention measures identified in the San Mateo County Fire Safe Brochure. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, wildland fire risks would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of Pacifica identifying how all applicable fire prevention measures identified in the San Mateo County Fire Safe Brochure have been incorporated into the project design. The applicant shall incorporate the approved fire prevention measures into the proposed project. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Development of the proposed project would involve ground-disturbing activities that could potentially result in erosion on- or offsite. Although, the proposed project would not be subject to federal or state pollution prevention requirements associated with construction activities because less than 1 acre would be disturbed, there is still the potential for pollution and erosion to occur. As such, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is proposed requiring the Michael Brandman Associates 61 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

66 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration implementation of standard stormwater pollution prevention and erosion control measures. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. The proposed project would develop approximately 5,650 square-feet of impervious surfaces on the project site. The increase in impervious surface coverage creates the potential for urban pollutants to enter downstream waterways. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 is proposed that requires the applicant to prepare and submit a drainage plan that identifies stormwater pollution prevent measures to the City of Pacifica for approval. With the implementation of mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM HYD-1 During construction, the following San Mateo County Storm Water Pollution Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be employed to ensure that water quality of surface runoff is maintained and no siltation of downstream waterways would occur: All project grading would take place in the dry season between April 1 and October 31 to minimize immediate erosion/siltation effects. Construction materials and waste shall be handled and disposed of properly in compliance with applicable law so as to prevent their contact with stormwater. Discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses shall be controlled and prevented. Sediment controls such as straw mulch, silt fences, sediment basins or traps and/or other measures shall be employed during construction. Tracking dirt or other materials offsite shall be avoided and offsite paved areas and sidewalks shall be cleaned regularly using dry sweeping methods. The contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding construction BMPs. MM HYD-2 Upon submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Drainage Plan to include all existing/natural and proposed drainage improvements at the project site. Drainage improvements shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works or City Engineer. The Drainage Plan shall include a drainage system maintenance program. 62 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

67 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation The applicant shall prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance for the drainage facilities to the City for review and approval. The Drainage Plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and must demonstrate that implementation of the plan will: Ensure that there is no net increase in total peak runoff rates for the project site relative to pre-development conditions; Ensure that runoff associated with 100-year storm events will not adversely impacts downstream waterways by providing hydrology calculations signed and stamped by a registered engineer; and Ensure that all swales have structural integrity. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be served with potable water from the North County Coastside Water District and would not pump groundwater from wells. The project site is not used for groundwater recharge; therefore, the development of the proposed project would not interfere with recharge activities. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface on the site that would consequently change the absorption rates and drainage patterns on the site. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 requires the project applicant to prepare and submit a Drainage Plan to the City of Pacifica for review and approval. The approved Drainage Plan must demonstrate that the post-development runoff rate will not exceed the pre-development runoff rate, which would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute excess flows to downstream waterways that contribute to erosion and siltation. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Michael Brandman Associates 63 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

68 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface on the site that would consequently change the absorption rates and drainage patterns on the site. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 requires the project applicant to prepare and submit a Drainage Plan to the City of Pacifica for review and approval. The approved Drainage Plan must demonstrate that the post-development runoff rate will not exceed the pre-development runoff rate, which would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute excess flows to downstream waterways that results in flooding. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface on the site that would consequently change the absorption rates and drainage patterns on the site. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 requires the project applicant to prepare and submit a Drainage Plan to the City of Pacifica for review and approval. The approved Drainage Plan must demonstrate that the post-development runoff rate will not exceed the pre-development runoff rate, which would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute excess flows to downstream waterways that result in flooding or degradation of water quality. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not possess any characteristics that would otherwise substantially degrade water quality beyond what was discussed previously. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No C indicates that the project site is located in Zone C, which is defined as areas outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, it would not place housing within a 100- year flood zone. No impacts would occur. 64 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

69 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. As stated in Item 8g), the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, it would not place structures within a 100-year flood zone. No impacts would occur. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The project site is not located downstream of any impounded water bodies or levees. This condition precludes the possibility of inundation of the project site by a levee or dam failure. No impacts would occur. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is more than 1 mile from the Pacific Ocean, with San Pedro Mountain located in between, precluding the possibility of tsunami inundation. There are no large inland bodies of water near the project site, which precludes the possibility of a seiche. San Pedro Mountain is not an active volcano, which precludes the possibility of a mudflow inundating the project site. No impacts would occur. 9. LAND USE Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is undeveloped and does not contain any established communities. The project site is surrounded by existing singlefamily residential uses to the north and east; however, the project site does not serve as a linkage between these uses; therefore, the development of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project s consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is discussed separately. Michael Brandman Associates 65 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

70 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan The project site is designated Very Low Density Residential by the General Plan. The General Plan establishes a range of 0.5 to 5.0 acres per dwelling unit for the Very Low Density Residential designation. The proposed project would develop a primary residence and second unit on a 6.3-acre parcel. If both structures were treated as separate dwelling units, there would be 3.15 acres for each unit, which would be within the range specified by the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential. Impacts would be less than significant. Zoning Ordinance The project site is designated Planned Development/Hillside Preservation District overlay by the Zoning Ordinance. Each designation is discussed below. Planned Development Zoning District The Planned Developing zoning district is intended to be a flexible designation allowing a variety of uses and development standards that are appropriate for an individual site. Planned Developing zoning district allows any use that is consistent with the underlying General Plan designation. The Planned Development zoning district requires the adoption of a development plan and specific plan for new development. The adoptions of these plans is considered a rezoning under the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project requires the approval of a development plan, specific plan, and rezoning pursuant to the requirements of the Planned Developing zoning district. These approvals would allow the development of the proposed primary residence and second unit. As previously discussed, these uses are consistent with the underlying General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the requirements of Planned Developing zoning district. Impacts would be less than significant. Hillside Preservation District Overlay The Hillside Preservation District overlay limits the amount of area that can be disturbed based on a slope calculation. Based on the average slope gradient of 29 percent, the Hillside Preservation District Ordinance allows a maximum of percent or 43,826 square feet of the lot to be disturbed. The Hillside Preservation District overlay establishes the following guidelines that are applicable to the proposed project: 66 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

71 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation The concentration of dwellings and other structures by clustering and/or high rise should be encouraged to help save larger areas of open space and preserve the natural terrain; To preserve and enhance the beauty of the landscape by encouraging the maximum retention of natural topographic features, such as drainage swales, streams, slopes, ridge lines, rock-out-croppings, vistas, natural plant formations, and trees; To prohibit, insofar as is feasible and reasonable, the padding or terracing of building sites in the hillside areas; Imaginative and innovative building techniques should be encouraged to create buildings suited to natural hillside surroundings; It is the intent of this section to discourage the development of ridgelines; however, where a parcel has ridgelines that are the only buildable portion of the property, or where it can be demonstrated that the sensitive development of other portions of such a parcel would significantly frustrate the other purposes of this article, then some development of such ridgelines may be permitted provided most of the ridgeline remains undisturbed, and any such ridgeline development is of low profile, has minimum visual impact, and utilizes a minimum of grading. The proposed project would disturb approximately 10,000 square feet of the 6.3-acre parcel, which is within the allowable limit of 43,826 square feet established by the slope gradient formula. The proposed project would locate structures and improvements at the base of the slope, near the Perez Drive cul-de-sac. Only the lower portion of the slope would be disturbed by the proposed project. The rear of two structures, including patios, would be partially embedded into the hillside, with retaining walls protecting the slope. The upper portions of the slope, which are wooded and highly visible, would not be affected by the proposed project. This proposed layout avoids disturbance to ridgelines, minimizes slope disturbance, and seeks to maintain the hillside character as much as possible. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the requirements of the Hillside Preservation District overlay. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Michael Brandman Associates 67 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

72 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration No Impact. The project site is not located within the boundaries of an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, which precludes the possibility of conflicts with such a plan. No impacts would occur. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. No known mineral resources exist within the project site. In addition, no classified or designated mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance are known to occur in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. No impacts would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by the City of Pacifica General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts would occur. 11. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. Noise is measured in a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as the decibel (db). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to given sound levels at all frequencies, a special frequency rangedependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise perceptible to the human ear, known as the A-weighted decibel scale (dba). The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average dba noise level that accounts for the greater sensitivity to noise people have during the evening and nighttime by adding 5 dba to noise occurring in the evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 10 dba to noise occurring in the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). 68 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

73 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation The proposed project consists of the construction of a primary single-family residence, a second unit, and site improvements on the project site. The primary source of noise from the residence would be vehicle trips associated with the two residential units, which are estimated to be no more than 17 per day. Given the low number of vehicle trips, the proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels such that it would exceed the City s noise standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the construction of a primary single-family residence, a second unit, and site improvements on the project site. Construction of the proposed project would not require pile driving or other construction techniques likely to cause perceptible, offsite groundborne noise or vibration. Activities associated with earthmoving equipment and similar construction equipment would occur on a temporary basis. Operation of the project would not involve any activity that would produce perceptible groundborne noise or vibration. Impacts would be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the construction of a primary single-family residence, a second unit, and site improvements on the project site. The primary source of noise from the project would be vehicle trips associated with the two residential units, which are estimated to be no more than 17 per day. Given the low number of vehicle trips, the proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, asphalt pavers, and portable equipment, can reach significant levels ranging from 70 dba to 105 dba. Impacts from construction are considered short-term impacts, since noise will cease upon completion of construction activity. Noise-sensitive land uses that could be affected by construction activities are existing single-family residences on parcels adjacent to the project site. To avoid significant construction noise impacts on the sensitive Michael Brandman Associates 69 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

74 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration receptors, mitigation is proposed that would require noise attenuation measures. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM NOI-1 During construction activities for the proposed project, the following noise attenuation measures shall be implemented: Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends pursuant to Municipal Code Section (111.2). All construction equipment shall use noise-reduction features (e.g., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are no less effective than those originally installed by the manufacturer. A noise protection barrier shall be erected around stationary combustion equipment such as pumps or generators operating within 100 feet of adjacent residences. All equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. A sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive project information or to report complaints regarding excessive noise levels. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site, Half Moon Bay Airport, is located approximately 3.5 miles to the south. The project site is not within the boundaries of the Half Moon Bay Airport land use plan or influence area. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project exposing people residing or working the project vicinity to excessive aviation noise levels. No impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. This condition precludes the possibility of the project site being exposed to adverse aviation noise. No impacts would occur. 70 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

75 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the development of a primary single-family residence, a second unit, and site improvements. The population growth associated with the development of the primary residence and second unit would be negligible, as the structures would be expected to house no more than two families at most. The project site is located at the end of the Perez Drive cul-de-sac, which is an existing residential neighborhood served with urban infrastructure and services. Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in the removal of a physical barrier to growth and, as such, would not have the potential to indirectly induce population growth. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is undeveloped and does not contain any residential structures. The development of the proposed project would not displace any existing housing and, therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site is not occupied by any persons. The development of the proposed project would not displace any persons and, therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Michael Brandman Associates 71 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

76 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Fire Protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be located within the service area of the North County Fire Authority. The development of a primary single-family residence and a second unit would not significantly increase demand for fire protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would not require additional fire protection services such that new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Police Protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be located within the service area of the Pacifica Police Department. The development of a primary single-family residence and second unit would not significantly increase demand for police protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would not require additional police protection services such that new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would develop a primary single-family residence and second unit, which could house at most two families. Accordingly, the proposed project would not create substantial additional enrollment in local public schools such that new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would develop a primary single-family residence and second unit, which could house at most two families. Accordingly, the proposed project would not substantially increase the use of local parks such that new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Other pubic facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would develop a primary single-family residence and second unit, which could house at most two families. Accordingly, the proposed project would not substantially increase the use of public facilities such as libraries such that new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. 72 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

77 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation 14. RECREATION a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would develop a primary single-family residence and second unit, which could house at most two families. Accordingly, the proposed project would not substantially increase the use of neighborhood and regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not propose to develop any recreational facilities. Given the scale of the proposed project, it would not be expected to increase the use of recreational facilities such that new or expanded facilities would be required. No impacts would occur. 15. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional vehicle trips on local roadways. The estimated project weekday trip generation for the proposed project, shown in Table 6, indicates that the project is expected to result in an additional 17 daily trips, with two morning peak-hour trips and two weekday afternoon peak-hour trips. The addition of two trips to morning and afternoon peak-hour intersection volumes would not have a noticeable effect on roadway capacity or operations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Michael Brandman Associates 73 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

78 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Table 6: Kolev Residence Project Weekday Trip Generation Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips Primary Residence (ITE Code 210 Single Family Residence) 9.57 trips/unit trip/unit trips/unit 1 Second Unit (ITE Code 220 Apartment) 6.65 trips/unit trip/unit trip/unit 1 Total Notes: Trip values rounded to nearest whole number. Second unit classified as apartment for trip generation purposes because of smaller living space. AM Peak Hour: 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. PM Peak Hour: 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Item 15a) above, the proposed project would generate only two additional morning and afternoon peak-hour vehicle trips on local roadways. Two additional trips to local roadways during the morning and afternoon peak hours would not constitute a substantial increase in traffic; therefore, project-level and cumulative impacts to level of service would be less than significant. c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site, Half Moon Bay Airport, is located approximately 3.5 miles to the south. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project having the potential to cause changes in air traffic patterns. No impacts would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project would be accessed from the Perez Drive cul-desac and would not involve any modifications to roadways in the project vicinity. 74 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

79 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase traffic hazards as a result of a design feature or incompatible use. No impacts would occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project would be accessed from the Perez Drive cul-desac and would not involve any modifications to roadways in the project vicinity. Perez Drive has sufficient width to accommodate large emergency vehicles (e.g., fire engines). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impacts would occur. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact. Municipal Code Section requires that two covered parking spaces and one uncovered space be provided for each single-family and two-family residential unit. Based on this requirement, the proposed project would be required to provide a minimum of four covered spaces and two uncovered spaces. The proposed project would provide four covered (garage) spaces and two uncovered spaces. Three of the covered spaces would be provided in the second unit and the other would be underneath the main residence. Although the space underneath the main residence would be a tandem space and could hold two vehicles parked bumper-to-bumper, the Municipal Code considers this to be a single space. As such, the proposed project would provide adequate parking capacity. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. No sidewalks or designated bicycle facilities exist on Perez Drive. However, bicyclists and pedestrians can safely ride and walk on the roadway. In addition, there are no bus stops on Perez Drive. The proposed project would not alter these existing conditions; therefore, the proposed project would not impair access to alternative transportation. Impacts would be less than significant. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Michael Brandman Associates 75 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

80 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would connect to the City s municipal sewer system, with wastewater conveyed to the treatment plant located on the west side of SR-1 at Reina Del Mar. The wastewater treatment plant is designed to accommodate flows from buildout of the City s General Plan. As previously stated, the project is consistent with the City s General Plan. The increase in wastewater flows from the project would be minimal and similar to wastewater flow from surrounding residential uses. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Item 16a) above, the proposed single-family residence and second unit would connect to the City s municipal sewer system, with wastewater conveyed to the treatment plant. In addition, as discussed in Item 16d) below, adequate water supply provided by the North Coast County Water District would be available to serve the proposed project. The increase in demand for potable water supplies for the proposed project would be minimal. Therefore, the proposed project would not require construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface on the site that would consequently change the absorption rates and drainage patterns on the site. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure HYD-2 requires the project applicant to prepare and submit a Drainage Plan to the City of Pacifica for review and approval. The approved Drainage Plan must demonstrate that the post-development runoff rate will not exceed the pre-development runoff rate, which would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute excess flows to downstream waterways that result in flooding. Therefore, no offsite storm drainage facilities would be required as part of the proposed project. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 76 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

81 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Evaluation Less Than Significant Impact. The North Coast County Water District prepared an Urban Water Management Plan in December 2005 that projects and plans for water demands until The Urban Water Management Plan indicates sufficient water supplies exist for projected growth and existing uses under normal years, using growth projections from the City s General Plan and the U.S. Census. Since the project is consistent with the City s General Plan, the Urban Water Management Plan includes the proposed project in its analysis of anticipated growth in water demand and would be able to provide service. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed single-family residence and second unit would connect to the City s municipal sewer system, with wastewater conveyed to the treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant was designed to accommodate flows from buildout of the City s General Plan and would have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill near Half Moon Bay would serve the proposed project. The solid waste generated by the project would be minimal, estimated to be approximately 2.5 tons annually (0.42 ton x 6 persons). Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill has more than 44 million cubic yards of remaining capacity and, therefore, would have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed project s solid waste disposal needs. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be served with curbside recycling and green waste service. Given project characteristics, no further recycling or waste reduction requirements would be applicable to the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or Michael Brandman Associates 77 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

82 Environmental Evaluation City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project may result in biological resource and cultural resource impacts that would be significant if left unmitigated. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 and CUL-1 and CUL-2 would fully mitigate all potential impacts to levels of less than significant. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. All cumulative impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Given the size of the project and its impacts and mitigation measures, the incremental effects of this home project are not considerable when considered in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. As discussed above, the project does not have a significant cumulative traffic impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on these areas. Impacts are less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. All impacts identified in this IS/MND are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental effects that cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Impacts are less than significant. 78 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

83 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration List of Preparers SECTION 4: LIST OF PREPARERS LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Michael Brandman Associates Bishop Ranch Camino Ramon, Suite 460 San Ramon, CA Phone: Project Director... Jason M. Brandman Project Manager...Grant Gruber Air Quality Analyst...Chryss Meier Graphic Artist...Karlee McCracken Graphic Artist... Mike Serrano Executive Assistant...Jayne Ingram Administrative Assistant...Alicia Yuen Technical Editor... Ed Livingston Reprographics... José Morelos Reprographics...Cole Forbes APPLICANT S CONSULTANTS Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers 360 Grand Avenue, Suite 262 Oakland, CA Phone: Principal Engineer... H. Allen Gruen, C.E., G.E. Zander Associates 150 Ford Way, Suite 101 Novato, CA Phone: Senior Biologist... Erin Avery Michael Brandman Associates 79 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

84

85 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration References SECTION 5: REFERENCES Association of Environmental Professionals California Environmental Quality Act Statute & Guidelines Avery, Erin. Senior Biologist, Zander Associates. Personal communication: . May 12, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. January 4. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January. California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Planning Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. California Attorney General s Office The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. May 21. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program San Mateo County Important Farmland Map February. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. California Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor Database Query for Zip Code. April 15. California Department of Finance E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. May. California Department of Fish and Game California Natural Diversity Database: RareFind 2. Records of Occurrence for the Montara Mountain 7.5-minute Quadrangle. December. California Department of Transportation Technical Noise Supplement. October. California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway System. Website: Accessed April 13, California Department of Transportation Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. June. California Integrated Waste Management Board Solid Waste Information System. Website: Accessed April 13, Michael Brandman Associates 81 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

86 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration California Integrated Waste Management Board Residential Waste Disposal Rates. Website: Accessed April 7, California Native Plant Society On-line Inventory for the Montara Mountain, South San Francisco, and Half Moon Bay 7.5-Minute Quadrangles. December. City of Pacifica City of Pacifica General Plan. June. City of Pacifica City of Pacifica Municipal Code. August. DeLorme Northern California Atlas and Gazetteer. Earth Mechanics Consulting Engineers Geotechnical Investigation Report, Planned Residence on Perez Drive (APN ), Pacifica, California. September 9. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No C, Community Panel. February 4. Governor s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through the California Environmental Quality Act. June 19. Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8 th Edition. Glush Design Architects, Inc Kolev Residence Project Plans. December. Kolev, Emil, Project Applicant Personal communication: site tour. April 8. Kolev, Emil California Red-Legged Frog Critical Habitat Mapping. Kolev, Emil Kolev Residence Build It Green Single Family Checklist. December 10. Michael Brandman Associates Air Quality Modeling Data. April. North Coast County Water District Urban Water Management Plan December. State of California Assembly Bill No The California Global Warming Solutions Act of August 31. United States Geological Survey Open File Report (Liquefaction Susceptibility). United States Geological Survey Geologic Map of the Montara Mountain and San Mateo 7.5- Minute Quadrangles, San Mateo County, California. United States Geological Survey Montara Mountain, California, United States 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle. United States Geological Survey Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, California. Zander Associates Biological Resource Assessment, APN , Pacifica, California. December Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

87 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix A: Air Quality Modeling Data Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

88

89 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration A-1: Urbemis2007 Output Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

90

91 Page: 1 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\mba\Desktop\Kolev - Unmitigated.urb924 Project Name: Kolev Residence Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) , PM2.5 CO TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN

92 Page: 2 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Time Slice 7/1/2009-7/28/2009 Active Days: 20 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/2009 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

93 Page: 3 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Time Slice 7/29/2009-8/11/2009 Active Days: 10 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

94 Page: 4 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Time Slice 8/12/2009-8/12/2009 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 8/13/ /31/2009 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips

95 Page: 5 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Time Slice 1/1/2010-3/9/2010 Active Days: 48 Time Slice 3/10/2010-3/24/2010 Active Days: 11 Time Slice 3/25/2010-4/7/2010 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 7/1/2009-8/12/ Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 0.23 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.23 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 50 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day

96 Page: 6 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 7/29/2009-8/12/ Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.17 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 8/12/2009-3/24/ Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 3/10/2010-4/7/ Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

97 Page: 7 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Time Slice 7/1/2009-7/28/2009 Active Days: 20 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/2009 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 7/29/2009-8/11/2009 Active Days: 10 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

98 Page: 8 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Time Slice 8/12/2009-8/12/2009 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 8/13/ /31/2009 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips

99 Page: 9 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Time Slice 1/1/2010-3/9/2010 Active Days: 48 Time Slice 3/10/2010-3/24/2010 Active Days: 11 Time Slice 3/25/2010-4/7/2010 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 3/10/2010-4/7/ Default Architectural Coating Description For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10%

100 Page: 10 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas Hearth Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.10 Architectural Coatings 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) Area Source Mitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas Hearth Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 0.10 Architectural Coatings 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected Mitigation Description Percent Reduction Residential Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title Area Source Changes to Defaults

101 Page: 11 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) Operational Mitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Operational Mitigation Options Selected Residential Mitigation Measures Residential Local-Serving Retail Mitigation Percent Reduction in Trips is 0% (calculated as a % of 9.57 trips/day))) Note that the above percent is applied to a baseline of 9.57 and that product is subtracted from the Unmitigated Trips Inputs Selected: The Presence of Local-Serving Retail checkbox was NOT selected. Nonresidential Mitigation Measures Operational Settings:

102 Page: 12 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 40 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Single family housing dwelling units Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck lbs Med Truck lbs Lite-Heavy Truck ,000 lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home

103 Page: 13 4/16/2009 9:18:37 AM Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Operational Changes to Defaults

104 Page: 1 4/16/2009 9:18:26 AM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\mba\Desktop\Kolev - Unmitigated.urb924 Project Name: Kolev Residence Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) , TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) , PM2.5 CO TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day mitigated) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN NaN NaN 29.88

105 Page: 2 4/16/2009 9:18:26 AM OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Time Slice 7/1/2009-7/28/2009 Active Days: 20 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/2009 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

106 Page: 3 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Time Slice 7/29/2009-8/11/2009 Active Days: 10 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

107 Page: 4 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Time Slice 8/12/2009-8/12/2009 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 8/13/ /31/2009 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips

108 Page: 5 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Time Slice 1/1/2010-3/9/2010 Active Days: 48 Time Slice 3/10/2010-3/24/2010 Active Days: 11 Time Slice 3/25/2010-4/7/2010 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 7/1/2009-8/12/ Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 0.23 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.23 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 50 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day

109 Page: 6 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 7/29/2009-8/12/ Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.17 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 8/12/2009-3/24/ Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 3/10/2010-4/7/ Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report:

110 Page: 7 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Time Slice 7/1/2009-7/28/2009 Active Days: 20 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/2009 ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO , , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 7/29/2009-8/11/2009 Active Days: 10 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips

111 Page: 8 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Time Slice 8/12/2009-8/12/2009 Active Days: 1 Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ , Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ , Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips , Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel , Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 8/13/ /31/2009 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips

112 Page: 9 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Time Slice 1/1/2010-3/9/2010 Active Days: 48 Time Slice 3/10/2010-3/24/2010 Active Days: 11 Time Slice 3/25/2010-4/7/2010 Active Days: Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 3/10/2010-4/7/ Default Architectural Coating Description For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10%

113 Page: 10 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape Consumer Products 0.10 Architectural Coatings 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) Area Source Mitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape Consumer Products 0.10 Architectural Coatings 0.03 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected Mitigation Description Percent Reduction Residential Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title Area Source Changes to Defaults

114 Page: 11 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) Operational Mitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) Operational Mitigation Options Selected Residential Mitigation Measures Residential Local-Serving Retail Mitigation Percent Reduction in Trips is 0% (calculated as a % of 9.57 trips/day))) Note that the above percent is applied to a baseline of 9.57 and that product is subtracted from the Unmitigated Trips Inputs Selected: The Presence of Local-Serving Retail checkbox was NOT selected. Nonresidential Mitigation Measures Operational Settings:

115 Page: 12 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Single family housing dwelling units Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck lbs Med Truck lbs Lite-Heavy Truck ,000 lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home

116 Page: 13 4/16/2009 9:18:27 AM Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Operational Changes to Defaults

117 Page: 1 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Urbemis 2007 Version Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\mba\Desktop\Kolev - Unmitigated.urb924 Project Name: Kolev Residence Project Location: Bay Area Air District On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) Percent Reduction PM2.5 CO TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year mitigated) Percent Reduction AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Percent Reduction 0.00 NaN 0.00 NaN

118 Page: 2 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Percent Reduction NaN Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2

119 Page: 3 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips

120 Page: 4 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Phase Assumptions Phase: Fine Grading 7/1/2009-8/12/ Default Fine Site Grading Description Total Acres Disturbed: 0.23 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.23 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Low Onsite Cut/Fill: 50 cubic yards/day; Offsite Cut/Fill: 0 cubic yards/day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 7/29/2009-8/12/ Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.17 Off-Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 8/12/2009-3/24/ Default Building Construction Description Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 3/10/2010-4/7/ Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250

121 Page: 5 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO Fine Grading 07/01/ /12/ Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Asphalt 07/29/ /12/ Paving Off-Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips

122 Page: 6 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Building 08/12/ /24/ Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 03/10/ /07/ Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 3/10/2010-4/7/ Default Architectural Coating Description For Residential Architectural Coating Measures, the Residential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas Hearth Landscape Consumer Products 0.02 Architectural Coatings 0.01 TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

123 Page: 7 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Area Source Mitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas Hearth Landscape Consumer Products 0.02 Architectural Coatings 0.01 TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Area Source Mitigation Measures Selected Mitigation Description Percent Reduction Residential Increase Energy Efficiency Beyond Title Area Source Changes to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated)

124 Page: 8 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Operational Mitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year, Mitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Operational Mitigation Options Selected Residential Mitigation Measures Residential Local-Serving Retail Mitigation Percent Reduction in Trips is 0% (calculated as a % of 9.57 trips/day))) Note that the above percent is applied to a baseline of 9.57 and that product is subtracted from the Unmitigated Trips Inputs Selected: The Presence of Local-Serving Retail checkbox was NOT selected. Nonresidential Mitigation Measures Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Season: Annual Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov

125 Page: 9 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Single family housing dwelling units Vehicle Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 lbs Light Truck lbs Med Truck lbs Lite-Heavy Truck ,000 lbs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 lbs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 lbs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 lbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles)

126 Page: 10 4/16/2009 9:18:46 AM Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other Commute Non-Work Customer Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Operational Changes to Defaults

127 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration A-2: Summary of Operational Greenhouse Gases Kolev Residence Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

128

129 Summary of Operational Greenhouse Gases Unmitigated Kolev Residence Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Emissions (tons per year) Carbon Dioxide Nitrous Oxide Methane Metric Tons CO2e Source Motor vehicles Natural gas (Residential) Hearth 1 1 Landscape 0 0 Indirect electricity Total Total metric tons per year GWP Total MTCO2E per year Total MMTCO2E per year Total - all gases 33 MTCO2e per year MMTCO2e per year California emissions in MMTCO2e per year Project percent of emissions % California 2020 BAU Project percent of emissions % California 1990/2020 Target 427 Project percent of emissions % Emissions converted from tons per year to metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) per year by using the formula: (tons of gas) x (global warming potential) x ( metric tons) Emissions converted to million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2E) using the formula: MMTCO2e = (metric tons of gas) / (1,000,000).

130 Mobile Emissions - Methane Unmitigated Page 1 Kolev Residence 16-Apr-09 Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Vehicle Miles Traveled 145 Starting Emissions 0.00 lbs/day tons/day 0.00 tons/year Running Emissions 0.04 lbs/day tons/day 0.01 tons/year Total 0.04 lbs/day tons/day 0.01 tons/year Vehicle Percentages Vehicle Type Percent Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 53.7% 1.3% 98.3% 0.4% Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 12.9% 2.3% 94.6% 3.1% Light Truck 3,751-5, % 0.5% 99.5% 0.0% Med Truck 5,751-8, % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Lite-Heavy 8,501-10, % 0.0% 77.8% 22.2% Lite-Heavy 10,001-14, % 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Med-Heavy 14,001-33, % 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60, % 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Urban Bus 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motorcycle 3.2% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% School Bus 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motor Home 0.6% 0.0% 83.3% 16.7% Running Emission Factors (g/mile) Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Running Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lbs Light Truck 3,751-5, Med Truck 5,751-8, Lite-Heavy 8,501-10, Lite-Heavy 10,001-14, Med-Heavy 14,001-33, Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60, Line Haul > 60,000 lbs Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Total

131 Mobile Emissions - Methane Page 2 Kolev Residence Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Total Trips 17 Starting Emission Factors (g/start) Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Total Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Total Source of running emission factors: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, Core Module Guidance. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. October Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS default values. - Source of starting emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by ICF Consulting. EPA420-P Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for On-Highway Vehicles. November 2004.

132 Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Unmitigated Page 1 Kolev Residence 16-Apr-09 Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Vehicle Miles Traveled 145 Starting Emissions 0.00 lbs/day tons/day 0.00 tons/year Running Emissions 0.02 lbs/day tons/day 0.00 tons/year Total 0.02 lbs/day tons/day 0.00 tons/year Vehicle Percentages Vehicle Type Percent Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 53.7% 1.3% 98.3% 0.4% Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 12.9% 2.3% 94.6% 3.1% Light Truck 3,751-5, % 0.5% 99.5% 0.0% Med Truck 5,751-8, % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Lite-Heavy 8,501-10, % 0.0% 77.8% 22.2% Lite-Heavy 10,001-14, % 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% Med-Heavy 14,001-33, % 0.0% 20.0% 80.0% Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60, % 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Urban Bus 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motorcycle 3.2% 68.8% 31.2% 0.0% School Bus 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Motor Home 0.6% 0.0% 83.3% 16.7% Running Emission Factors (g/mile) Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Running Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lbs Light Truck 3,751-5, Med Truck 5,751-8, Lite-Heavy 8,501-10, Lite-Heavy 10,001-14, Med-Heavy 14,001-33, Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60, Line Haul > 60,000 lbs Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Total

133 Mobile Emissions - Nitrous Oxide Page 2 Kolev Residence Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates Buildout Year 2010 Total Trips 17 Starting Emission Factors (g/start) Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Trip Distribution Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Total Starting Emissions (pounds per day) Vehicle Type Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto LDA Light Truck < 3,750 lbs LDT Light Truck 3,751-5,750 LDT Med Truck 5,751-8,500 MDV Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 LHDT Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 LHDT Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 MHDT Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 HHDT Line Haul > 60,000 lbs LHV Urban Bus UB Motorcycle MCY School Bus SBUS Motor Home MH Total Source of running emission factors: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol, Core Module Guidance. Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. October Source of vehicle percentages: URBEMIS default values. - Source of starting emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by ICF Consulting. EPA420-P Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission Factors for On-Highway Vehicles. November 2004.

134 Electricity - Indirect Emissions Project: Kolev Residence Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Prepared on: 4/16/2009 Land Use square feet (sf) Electricity Use (kwh/unit-year)* Electricity Use (kwh/year) Single Family Residence 4, Secondary Building 1, Total MWh/year Greenhouse Gas Emission Factor (pounds per MWh/year) Emissions (pounds/year) Emissions (tons/year) Carbon dioxide ,888 5 Methane Nitrous oxide Residential electricity usage rate: kwh/unit/year, from South Coast Air Quality Management 1993 CEQA Handbook, Table 9-11-A *

135 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration A-3: Kolev Residence GreenPoint Checklist Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

136

137 Single Family GreenPoint Checklist The GreenPoint Checklist is based on the various green features incorporated into the home and is the basis for the GreenPoint Rated program. A home can be considered green if it fulfills the prerequisites, earns at least 50 points, and meets the minimum points per category: Energy (30), Indoor Air Quality/ Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (9). Please contact Build It Green for a list of qualified GreenPoint Raters if you are interested in pursuing third-party verification. The green building practices listed below are described in the New Home Construction Green Building Guidelines, available at KOLEV RESIDENCE APN PEREZ DR., PACIFICA December 10, 2008 date: Points Achieved Possible Points Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water A. SITE Points Available Per Measure 1. Protect Topsoil and Minimize Disruption of Existing Plants & Trees a. Protect Topsoil from Erosion and Reuse after Construction b. Limit and Delineate Construction Footprint for Maximum Protection Deconstruct Instead of Demolishing Existing Buildings On Site Recycle Job Site Construction Waste (Including Green Waste) a. Minimum 50% Waste Diversion by Weight (Recycling or Reuse) - Required 0 R b. Minimum 65% Diversion by Weight (Recycling or Reuse) 2 2 c. Minimum 80% Diversion by Weight (Recycling or Reuse) Use Recycled Content Aggregate (Minimum 25%) a. Walkway and Driveway 1 1 b. Roadway Base 1 1 Total Points Available in Site = 12 9 B. FOUNDATION Points Available Per Measure 1. Replace Portland Cement in Concrete with Recycled Flyash or Slag a. Minimum 20% Flyash or Slag 0 1 b. Minimum 25% Flyash or Slag Use Frost-Protected Shallow Foundation in Cold Areas (C.E.C. Climate Zone 16) Use Radon Resistant Construction (In At-Risk Locations Only) Design and Build Structural Pest Controls a. Install Termite Shields & Separate All Exterior Wood-to-Concrete Connections by Metal or Plastic Fasteners/Dividers 1 1 b. All New Plants Have Trunk, Base, or Stem Located At Least 36 Inches from Foundation 1 1 Total Points Available in Foundation = 8 3 C. LANDSCAPING 1. Construct Resource-Efficient Landscapes Points Available Per Measure a. No Invasive Species Listed by Cal-IPC Are Planted 1 1 b. No Plant Species Will Require Hedging 1 1 c. 75% of Plants Are Drought-tolerant California Natives, Mediterranean, or Other Appropriate Species Use Fire-Safe Landscaping Techniques Minimize Turf Areas in Landscape Installed by Builder a. All Turf Will Have a Water Requirement Less than or Equal to Tall Fescue ( 0.8 plant factor) 2 2 b. Turf Shall Not Be Installed on Slopes Exceeding 10% or in Areas Less than 8 Feet Wide 2 2 c. Turf is 33% of Landscaped Area (total 2 points) 2 2 d. Turf is 10% of Landscaped Area (total 4 points) Plant Shade Trees Group Plants by Water Needs (Hydrozoning) Install High-Efficiency Irrigation Systems a. System Uses Only Low-Flow Drip, Bubblers, or Low-flow Sprinklers 2 2 b. System Has Smart Controllers Incorporate Two Inches of Compost in the Top 6 to 12 Inches of Soil Mulch All Planting Beds to the Greater of 2 Inches or Local Water Ordinance Requirement Use 50% Salvaged or Recycled-Content Materials for 50% of Non-Plant Landscape Elements Reduce Light Pollution by Shielding Fixtures and/or Directing Light Downward 1 1 Total Points Available in Landscaping = D. STRUCTURAL FRAME & BUILDING ENVELOPE Points Available Per Measure 1. Apply Optimal Value Engineering a. Place Rafters and Studs at 24-Inch On Center Framing 0 1 b. Size Door and Window Headers for Load 0 1 c. Use Only Jack and Cripple Studs Required for Load Use Engineered Lumber a. Beams and Headers 0 1 b. Insulated Engineered Headers 0 1 c. Wood I-Joists or Web Trusses for Floors 0 1 d. Wood I-Joists for Roof Rafters 0 1 e. Engineered or Finger-Jointed Studs for Vertical Applications 0 1 f. Oriented Strand Board for Subfloor 0 1 g. Oriented Strand Board for Wall and Roof Sheathing Use FSC-Certified Wood a. Dimensional Lumber, Studs and Timber: Minimum 40% 2 2 b. Dimensional Lumber, Studs and Timber: Minimum 70% Build It Green Single Family GreenPoint Checklist 2007 Version Page 1 of 4

138 KOLEV RESIDENCE APN PEREZ DR., PACIFICA December 10, 2008 Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water c. Panel Products: Minimum 40% 1 1 d. Panel Products: Minimum 70% Use Solid Wall Systems (Includes SIPs, ICFs, & Any Non-Stick Frame Assembly) a. Floors b. Walls c. Roofs Reduce Pollution Entering the Home from the Garage a. Tightly Seal the Air Barrier between Garage and Living Area 1 1 b. Install Garage Exhaust Fan OR Build a Detached Garage Design Energy Heels on Trusses (75% of Attic Insulation Height at Outside Edge of Exterior Wall) Design Roof Trusses to Accommodate Ductwork Use Recycled-Content Steel Studs for 90% of Interior Wall Framing Thermal Mass Walls: 5/8-Inch Drywall on All Interior Walls or Walls Weighing more than 40 lb/cu.ft Install Overhangs and Gutters a. Minimum 16-Inch Overhangs and Gutters 1 1 b. Minimum 24-Inch Overhangs and Gutters 0 1 Total Points Available in Structural Building Frame and Envelope = E. EXTERIOR FINISH 1. Use Recycled-Content (No Virgin Plastic) or FSC-Certified Wood Decking 2 Points Available Per Measure 2 2. Install a Rain Screen Wall System Use Durable and Noncombustible Siding Materials Select Durable and Noncombustible Roofing Materials 2 2 Total Points Available in Exterior Finish = 7 5 F. INSULATION Points Available Per Measure 1. Install Insulation with 75% Recycled Content a. Walls and/or Floors 1 1 b. Ceilings Install Insulation that is Low-Emitting (Certified Section 01350) a. Walls and/or Floors 1 1 b. Ceilings Inspect Quality of Insulation Installation before Applying Drywall 1 1 Total Points Available in Insulation = 5 5 G. PLUMBING Points Available Per Measure 1. Distribute Domestic Hot Water Efficiently (Maximum 7 Points) a. Insulate Hot Water Pipes from Water Heater to Kitchen b. Insulate All Hot Water Pipes c. Use Engineered Parallel Piping 0 1 d. Use Engineered Parallel Piping with Demand Controlled Circulation Loop 0 1 e. Use Structured Plumbing with Demand Controlled Circulation Loop f. Use Central Core Plumbing Install Only High Efficiency Toilets (Dual-Flush or 1.28 gpf) 4 4 Total Points Available in Plumbing = Total 12 8 H. HEATING, VENTILATION & AIR CONDITIONING 1. Design and Install HVAC System to ACCA Manual J, D, and S Recommendations 4 Points Available Per Measure 4 2. Install Sealed Combustion Units a. Furnaces 2 2 b. Water Heaters Install Zoned, Hydronic Radiant Heating with Slab Edge Insulation Install High Efficiency Air Conditioning with Environmentally Responsible Refrigerants Design and Install Effective Ductwork a. Install HVAC Unit and Ductwork within Conditioned Space 3 3 b. Use Duct Mastic on All Duct Joints and Seams 1 1 c. Install Ductwork under Attic Insulation (Buried Ducts) 0 1 d. Pressure Balance the Ductwork System 1 1 e. Protect Ducts during Construction and Clean All Ducts before Occupancy Install High Efficiency HVAC Filter (MERV 6+) Don't Install Fireplace or Install Sealed Gas Fireplaces with Efficiency Rating Not Less Than 60% 1 0 using CSA Standards 8. Install Effective Exhaust Systems in Bathrooms and Kitchens a. Install ENERGY STAR Bathroom Fans Vented to the Outside 1 1 b. All Bathroom Fans Are on Timer or Humidistat 1 1 c. Install Kitchen Range Hood Vented to the Outside Install Mechanical Ventilation System for Cooling (Maximum 4 Points) a. Install ENERGY STAR Ceiling Fans & Light Kits in Living Areas & Bedrooms 1 1 b. Install Whole House Fan with Variable Speeds 1 1 c. Automatically Controlled Integrated System 2 2 d. Automatically Controlled Integrated System with Variable Speed Control Install Mechanical Fresh Air Ventilation System (Maximum 3 Points) a. Any Whole House Ventilation System That Meets ASHRAE Build It Green Single Family GreenPoint Checklist 2007 Version Page 2 of 4

139 KOLEV RESIDENCE APN PEREZ DR., PACIFICA December 10, 2008 Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water b. install Air-to-Air Heat Exchanger that meets ASHRAE Install Carbon Monoxide Alarm(s) 1 1 Total Points Available in Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning = I. RENEWABLE ENERGY 1. Pre-Plumb for Solar Hot Water Heating 4 Points Available Per Measure 4 2. Install Solar Water Heating System Install Wiring Conduit for Future Photovoltaic Installation & Provide 200 ft 2 of South-Facing Roof Install Photovoltaic (PV) Panels a. 30% of electric needs OR 1.2 kw (total 6 points) 0 6 b. 60% of electric needs OR 2.4kW (total 12 points) 0 6 c. 90% of electric need OR 3.6 kw (total 18 points) 0 6 Total Available Points in Renewable Energy = 28 6 J. BUILDING PERFORMANCE Points Available Per Measure 1. Diagnostic Evaluations a. House Passes Blower Door Test 1 1 b. House Passes Combustion Safety Backdraft Test % 2. Design and Build High Performance Homes - % above Title 24 - minimum 15% Required House Obtains ENERGY STAR with Indoor Air Package Certification - Pilot Measure (Total 45 points; read comment) Total Available Points in Building Performance = K. FINISHES 1. Design Entryways to Reduce Tracked in Contaminants 1 Points Available Per Measure 1 2. Use Low-VOC or Zero-VOC Paint (Maximum 3 Points) a. Low-VOC Interior Wall/Ceiling Paints (<50 gpl VOCs (Flat) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non-Flat)) 0 1 ` b. Zero-VOC: Interior Wall/Ceiling Paints (<5 gpl VOCs (Flat)) Use Low VOC, Water-Based Wood Finishes (<250 gpl VOCs) Use Low-VOC Caulk and Construction Adhesives (<70 gpl VOCs) for All Adhesives Use Recycled-Content Paint Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed, C) Rapidly Renewable, D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed a. Cabinets (50% Minimum) 1 1 b. Interior Trim (50% Minimum) 1 1 c. Shelving (50% Minimum) 1 1 d. Doors (50% Minimum) 1 1 e. Countertops (50% Minimum) Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish (CA Section 01350) a. Subfloor & Stair Treads (50% Minimum) 1 1 b. Cabinets & Countertops (50% Minimum) 1 1 c. Interior Trim (50% Minimum) 1 1 d. Shelving (50% Minimum) After Installation of Finishes, Test of Indoor Air Shows Formaldehyde Level <27ppb 3 3 Total Available Points in Finishes = L. FLOORING Points Available Per Measure 1. Use Environmentally Preferable Flooring: A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed or Refinished, C) Rapidly Renewable, D) Recycled-Content, E) Exposed Concrete. Flooring Adhesives Must Have <50 gpl VOCs. a. Minimum 15% of Floor Area 1 1 b. Minimum 30% of Floor Area 1 1 c. Minimum 50% of Floor Area 1 1 d. Minimum 75% of Floor Area Thermal Mass Floors: Floor Covering Other than Carpet on 50% or More of Concrete Floors Flooring Meets Section or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (50% Minimum) 2 2 Total Available Points in Flooring = 7 7 M. APPLIANCES AND LIGHTING Points Available Per Measure 1. Install Water and Energy Efficient Dishwasher a. ENERGY STAR (total 1 point) 1 1 b. Dishwasher Uses No More than 6.5 Gallons/Cycle (total 2 points) Install ENERGY STAR Clothes Washing Machine with Water Factor of 6 or Less a. Meets Energy Star and CEE Tier 2 requirements (modified energy factor 2.0, Water Factor 6.0) (total 3 points) b. Meets Energy Star and CEE Tier 3 requirements (modified energy factor 2.2, Water Factor 4.5 or less) (total 5 points) Install ENERGY STAR Refrigerator a. ENERGY STAR Qualified & < 25 Cubic Feet Capacity 1 1 b. ENERGY STAR Qualified & < 20 Cubic Feet Capacity Install Built-In Recycling Center 0 a. Built-In Recycling Center 2 2 b. Built-In Composting Center 1 1 Total Available Points in Appliances and Lighting = N. OTHER Points Available Per Measure 2007 Build It Green Single Family GreenPoint Checklist 2007 Version Page 3 of 4

140 KOLEV RESIDENCE APN PEREZ DR., PACIFICA December 10, 2008 Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water 1. Incorporate GreenPoint Rated Checklist in Blueprints - Required 0 R 2. Develop Homeowner Manual of Green Features/Benefits Community Design Measures & Local Priorities: See the Community Planning & Design section in Chapter 4 of the New Home Guidelines for measures. Maximum of 20 points for suggested measures. Local requirements may also be listed here. Align house geometry with site topography to minimize excavation and control soil erosion Protect neighbors privacy through proper house orientation, window placement and screening vegetation Preserve and maintain the riparian belt along seasonal creek to protect wildlife habitat and control soil erosion Apply the concepts for passive solar heating for North and South facing windows to replace at least 30% of house heating needs with solar energy Innovation: List innovative measures that meet the green building objectives of the Guidelines. Enter up to a maximum combined total of 20 pts. See Innovation Checklist for suggested measures, using the link to the right. Build It Green Checklists and Guidelines Innovation in Community: Enter description here, and enter points available for measure in appropriate categories to the right Innovation in Energy: Enter description here, and enter points available for measure in appropriate categories to the right Innovation in IAQ/Health: Enter description here, and enter points available for measure in appropriate categories to the right Innovation in Resources: Enter description here, and enter points available for measure in appropriate categories to the right Innovation in Water: Enter description here, and enter points available for measure in appropriate categories to the right Total Available Points in Other = Summary Total Available Points in Specific Categories* Minimum Points Required in Specific Categories Total Points Achieved Project has not yet met the following recommended minimum requirements: - Total Project Score of At Least 50 Points - Required measures: -A3a: 50% waste diversion by weight -J2: 15% above Title 24 -N1: Incorporate GreenPoint Rated Checklist into blueprints - Minimum points in specific categories: -Energy (30 points) -IAQ/Health (5 points) -Resources (6 points) -Water (9 points) -Maximum 20 community points pursued under N3 -Maximum 20 points pursued under N3 and N4, not including community points under N Build It Green Single Family GreenPoint Checklist 2007 Version Page 4 of 4

141 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix B: Biological Resources Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

142

143 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration B-1: Biological Resources Assessment Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

144

145 ZANDER ASSOCIATES Environmental Consultants December 19, 2008 Emil Kolev El Prado Way Cupertino, CA Biological Resource Assessment APN Pacifica, California Dear Emil: Zander Associates has completed a biological assessment of existing resources on your Perez Drive property within the City of Pacifica, APN The property is approximately 6.3 acres in size and is located at the end of Perez Drive, within the Linda Mar planning area of Pacifica, abutting the north side of San Pedro Mountain. The purpose of this assessment is to describe existing vegetation communities on the site, to describe potential for special status plant and animal species, to assess potential project impacts, and to make recommendations for development planning with respect to biological resources. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants were consulted to compile a list of special status species that are known to occur in the vicinity (see Table 1), and a reconnaissance survey was conducted on December 3, 2008 to characterize the biological resources on the site. This report summarizes the results of our biological assessment. Project Description The project includes construction of an approximately 2,245 square foot single-family residence, a detached 1,070 square foot garage and about 4,900 square feet of new surfacing for a driveway, onsite parking, stairways and walkways on the northeast corner of a 6.3 acre parcel (see attached Site Plan). Survey stakes representing the approximate boundaries of the proposed house, garage and driveway were in place at the time of our site visit. Access to the property will extend from the existing cul-de-sac at the end of Perez Drive across a small ephemeral drainage along the east property boundary. An approximately 25 foot length of 48- inch culvert will be installed in the drainage at the new driveway crossing location, to abut an existing 48-inch culvert installed underneath the neighboring driveway. The proposed single-family residence will be built at the end of Perez Drive in a wellestablished neighborhood of the Linda Mar section of the City of Pacifica. The parcel is the last lot to be developed at the end of Perez Drive. The lot is surrounded by single-family 150 Ford Way, Suite 101, Novato, CA telephone: (415) fax: (415)

146 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 2 Zander Associates homes that were built in the timeframe. The neighboring residence on the north side, completed in 2001 on a similar lot, was the last new home to be built in the area. Site Description The Perez Drive property is located at the base of San Pedro Mountain. Situated on the northeast side of the mountain, the topography of the area is defined by steep slopes and ridges with numerous creeks and drainages that flow toward San Pedro Creek. Heavily influenced by coastal fog, much of San Pedro Mountain is characterized by northern maritime chaparral and coastal scrub habitat that transitions toward more broad-leaved woodland on the north and east facing slopes. There are also extensive stands of invasive eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus) on San Pedro Mountain and in Pacifica in general. The Perez Drive property itself is situated on a northeast facing slope with an elevation range of 200 to 360 feet above sea level. Habitat types found on the property include eucalyptus mixed with a native broad-leaved woodland understory, riparian scrub, and two ephemeral drainages. Each of these habitat types is described below. At the time of our site visit there had been some limited clearing of the understory vegetation on the northeast corner of the property, an area a little under 0.5 acre. The vegetation had been cut but the topsoil and root zone remained intact and it appeared that no living trees had been removed. Based on the cut debris on the ground and the vegetation sprouting back, it appeared that the cleared area consisted of the same plant assemblage that characterized the surrounding broad-leaf woodland and riparian understory. Within the cleared area is the proposed location for the house, garage and driveway. Mixed Eucalyptus / Native Broad-Leaved Woodland Except for the very north and east property edges, the site is almost entirely occupied by a very large eucalyptus stand that extends well beyond the property boundaries. Intermixed with the eucalyptus stand is native broad-leaved woodland typical of the north slopes of San Pedro Mountain, including large woody species such as toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and wax myrtle (Myrica californica), and understory shrubs such as huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Riparian Scrub The drainages on the property support dense riparian vegetation, including, but not limited to, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), coulter willow (Salix sitchensis), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), western lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum), twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), dogwood (Cornus sericea), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), pink honeysuckle (Lonicera hispidula), horsetail (Equisetum arvense), German ivy (Senecio mikanioides), common rush (Juncus effusus), spreading rush (Juncus patens), Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus), several carex species (Carex, sps.), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica),

147 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 3 Zander Associates western thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) and sneezeweed (Helenium puberulum). The riparian scrub vegetation forms a riparian corridor along the drainages and varies from approximately 15 to 30 feet in width. Ephemeral Drainages There are two ephemeral drainages on the property, one along the western section of the north property boundary and another along the east boundary. Both of the drainages originate upland of the site and both are fed by periodic storm events. They both cross onto the adjacent single family lot to the north and converge about 120 feet north of the northeast property corner. The combined drainage eventually flows to San Pedro Creek, approximately 0.45-mile northeast of the site, as the crow flies. East Drainage The east drainage enters the property after it passes through the single-family lot on the south. The drainage traverses the front (east) side of the property for about 125 feet. At the northeast property boundary, this drainage enters a culvert underneath the driveway of the neighboring property on the north. The band of riparian vegetation along the east drainage on the property is about 100-feet long and feet wide. However, there is limited riparian vegetation on the adjacent single family lots to the south and north due to landscaping. The channel of the east drainage appeared to be approximately one to two feet wide and two to three feet deep. At the time of our site visit, the east drainage had one to two inches of water intermittently flowing through it. North Drainage The north drainage enters the property at the northwest corner and flows along the north side of the property for about 560 feet toward the east. Once it leaves the property, the drainage flows through the adjacent single-family lot on the north for about 380 feet before it converges with the east drainage. The north drainage is heavily overgrown with native riparian vegetation until it crosses onto the adjacent lot where riparian vegetation is replaced by extensive landscaping. While there appeared to be no flow within the drainage, the water flow and drainage dimensions could not be decisively determined due to the density of the associated riparian vegetation. Special Status Species For this assessment, special status species are defined as: those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); plants occurring on lists 1A, 1B or 2 of the CNPS's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (2001); and animals designated as "Species of Special Concern" by CDFG. Nesting

148 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 4 Zander Associates migratory birds and raptors, protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703) and the California Fish and Game Code (Section ), are also afforded special-status. Zander Associates developed a target list of special status plant and animal species that we evaluated for their potential to occur on the Perez Drive property (Table 1). The list was developed based on our review of the CNDDB records (CDFG 2008) and the CNPS Electronic Inventory for the Montara Mountain 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle and the surrounding quadrangles (San Francisco South and Half Moon Bay). A directed survey was conducted for potential special status plant species that were identifiable during our December site visit but because our site visit occurred outside the typical blooming period for most ephemeral plants, there were several plant species on the target list that were not observable. General, habitat-based observations were made on the occurrence potential of special status animal species. Plants There are 52 special status plant species that have documented locations within the 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles that immediately surround the subject property. None of these species were observed during our site visit. Based on the vegetation and habitat characteristics of the site, there are six special status plant species that were determined to have potential to occur but were not identifiable at the time of our visit. These species include bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris), a CNPS List 1B species; bristly sedge (Carex comosa), a CNPS List 2 species; Franciscan thistle (Cirsium andrewsii), a CNPS List 1B species; Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea), a CNPS List 1B species; coast lily (Lilium maritimum), a CNPS List 1B species; and Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi), a CNPS List 1B species and a state listed rare species. See Table 1 for all potential special status plant species known to occur in the vicinity, along with habitat descriptions, listing status and blooming periods. Animals We did not conduct directed surveys for any special status animal species, but rather evaluated the potential of the property to support these species. As a result of our background review and subsequent site survey, we determined that the project site provides potential habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), a federally threatened species and a state species of special concern; San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), a federally and state listed endangered species; San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a state species of special concern; the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a state species of special concern; and the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), considered to be locally rare. There is also potential habitat for raptor and migratory bird species, whose nests are protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

149 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 5 Zander Associates California Red-Legged Frog The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is a federally listed threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. The red-legged frog typically inhabits ponds and backwater sections of streams with permanent or near-permanent water, and generally prefers areas with dense emergent or riparian vegetation and deep pools for breeding. Redlegged frogs will also use riparian drainages as dispersal corridors and have been known to move overland between suitable breeding sites. The closest CNDDB occurrence of this species is 0.7 mile west of the property, found within a pond near an agricultural area next to Highway One (CNDDB #980). The species has also been found 0.83 mile north of the site near the mouth of San Pedro Creek (CNDDB # 652), 1.1 miles southwest of the site within a drainage with permanent water flow near Devil s Slide (CNDDB # 539), and 1.26 miles southwest of the site in a small pond associated with Green Valley Creek (CNDDB #242). The drainages on the Perez Drive property contain inchannel vegetation that could provide cover and movement corridors for the species, but there are no permanent or near-permanent waterbodies (e.g. instream ponds or backwaters, nearby stock ponds) on or adjacent to the site with water of adequate duration or depth to provide suitable breeding habitat. There is limited potential for red-legged frog to use the drainages as dispersal corridors. Only CNDDB occurrence #652 shares a hydrological connection to the on-site drainages through the system of tributaries from San Pedro Creek. While the occurrence is only 0.83 mile from the site, the riparian corridor connection is about 1.5 miles long. In the absence of suitable aquatic habitat on the site and in upstream or adjacent areas, the likelihood of the species dispersing over this distance is minimal. San Francisco Garter Snake The San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) is a federally and state listed endangered species. The species typically prefers dense vegetative cover and water depths of at least one foot for breeding, as well as upland areas and rodent burrows for aestivation. The species is found in the vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and slow moving streams in San Mateo County and extreme northern Santa Cruz County. There are 8 recorded locations in the Montara Mountain 7.5 minute quadrangle but the location information is suppressed. The drainages on the Perez Drive property contain inchannel vegetation that could provide cover and movement corridors for the species, but there are no permanent or near-permanent waterbodies on or adjacent to the site with water of adequate duration or depth to provide suitable breeding habitat. In the absence of suitable aquatic habitat on the site, upstream or immediately adjacent to the site, the likelihood of the species dispersing onto the site is minimal. San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), a California Species of Special Concern, is a subspecies typically found within dense chaparral or redwood habitats

150 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 6 Zander Associates with moderately dense understory growth and abundant dead wood for nest construction. The closest recorded location is 4.9 miles east of the Perez Drive property, near Skyline Boulevard within eucalyptus forest. Given the size and structural complexity of the eucalyptus stand that occurs on the Perez Drive property, this species is likely to have nests on the site. Monarch Butterfly The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) has no listing status but is given conservation consideration within many areas along its migration route and at overwintering sites, given the removal of much of its habitat due to deforestation. Monarch butterflies are known to overwinter within large coastal stands of eucalyptus, forming large aggregations. While the exact location information has been suppressed within the CNDDB, there are three recorded roosting locations within the Montara Mountain 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle, all within eucalyptus groves. The eucalyptus stand on the Perez Drive property provides potential roosting habitat for the species. Raptors, Migratory Birds and Bats The trees and shrubs on the site could provide potential nesting opportunities for raptors (birds of prey) and migratory bird species, whose active nests are protected under the California Fish and Game Code (Section ) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703). Given the tall stature of eucalyptus, the tree is commonly used by raptor species for nesting. There is also potential roosting habitat within the smaller native trees and shrubs for a variety of bats known or suspected from the area, including the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California Species of Special Concern. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests. As used in the act, the term "take" is defined as meaning, "to pursue, hunt, capture, collect, kill or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect or kill, unless the context otherwise requires." Section of the California Fish and Game Code also protects the nests and eggs of birds-of-prey and essentially overlaps with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In practice, avoiding take of these species and abiding by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Game Code usually means to avoid removal or disturbance of trees with active nests until such time as the young have fledged and the nest is abandoned. Assessment and Recommendations The vegetation communities that occur on the Perez Drive property are typical of the Pacifica area and the ephemeral drainages that run along the property boundaries allow for a biologically diverse environment. The riparian vegetation associated with the drainages can support high species diversity and, along with the dense canopy cover, the drainages provide a mesic environment and a habitat corridor for wildlife. The drainages also provide a natural system for carrying seasonal flows during the winter months. Several special-status species have been recorded from the area and some could potentially occur on the property. At least

151 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 7 Zander Associates six locally known spring-blooming annual plants considered to be special status species could not be conclusively dismissed because of the timing of our reconnaissance. Although not observed during our site visit, dusky footed woodrats could nest in dense vegetation on the site. Raptors, migratory birds and bats could also nest on the site, especially in the taller eucalyptus trees. The eucalyptus stand also provides potential roosting habitat for monarch butterflies. The site development planning implications of these and other resources are discussed below along with measures that could reduce any potential project-related impacts to them. Special Status Plant Species No state or federally-listed threatened or endangered plants or their habitats were found or are expected to occur on the site. However, a qualified biologist should conduct a spring survey of the property in May or June to confirm the absence of the CNPS-listed bent-flowered fiddleneck, bristly sedge, Franciscan thistle, Diablo helianthella, coast lily, Dudley's lousewort (state-listed rare), and possibly other spring-blooming species. If any of these species are found within the project work area and cannot be avoided, the biologist should determine and implement an appropriate salvage and relocation program (e.g. translocation/seed collection) prior to grading activities so that the species can be established into another area of suitable habitat on the property. California Red-Legged Frog and San Francisco Garter Snake There is no breeding habitat for California red-legged frog or San Francisco garter snake on the property. Furthermore, the likelihood of these species using the on-site drainages as dispersal corridors is very low due to the absence of breeding habitat within close proximity of the site. However, because some work will be required along and within the east drainage, particularly for the installation of 25 feet of culvert, the following measures could further minimize impacts to potential habitat for these species:! Restrict work within and directly adjacent to the east drainage channel to the driest part of the year (between July 1 and October 15), outside of the breeding season when moisture conditions in ephemeral drainages are least attractive for red-legged frog dispersal.! During the installation of the entrance road culvert, limit the removal of riparian vegetation associated with the drainage channel to only the area required for the accommodation of the culvert and road.! Except for the installation of the culvert, completely avoid removal of riparian vegetation and establish an appropriate work boundary (e.g. with orange construction fencing) from both drainages during site development.

152 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 8 Zander Associates San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat The proposed development footprint has been cleared of vegetation; there are currently no woodrat nests within the project area. If the cleared vegetation is allowed to grow back, there is potential that a woodrat could establish a new nest in the project area, or could establish a nest within the riparian scrub vegetation next to the proposed location for the entrance road culvert. Prior to initial grading or expanded vegetation clearing on the site, a qualified biologist should survey for active San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within the work footprint plus a 100 foot buffer following CDFG survey protocol. If active nests are present in the area of disturbance, the biologist should determine appropriate setbacks and other measures to avoid direct impacts to these animals. 1 Any adults that remain in the area either during or after breeding season should be live-trapped and relocated to suitable nearby habitat. All stick nests should be relocated or dismantled after the site has been cleared of woodrats to prevent reoccupation. Intact nests or stick nest materials should be placed into suitable nearby habitat for use by the species. Monarch Butterfly No significant eucalyptus stands will be removed for the project and therefore no monarch butterfly colonies or roosting habitat should be impacted. Raptors, Migratory Birds and Bats There is no tree removal currently proposed for the project. Therefore, raptors, migratory birds and bats should not be negatively impacted unless the animals are nesting or roosting within trees immediately adjacent to the construction location. In practice, to avoid take of raptors, migratory birds and bats and to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, the following measures should be implemented. If tree removal, site clearing and grading are initiated after August 1 and before January 15 (outside of the typical maternity roosting season for bats and nesting season for raptors and migratory birds), then pre-construction surveys for active nests should not be necessary. If tree removal, site clearing and grading are initiated before August or after January, then pre-construction surveys for active nests are recommended. If active nests are found and the biologist determines that the proposed activities would remove the nest or have the potential to cause abandonment, then an appropriate setback should be established by the biologist around the nest. Tree removal, clearing, grading and construction activities within the setback should be avoided until the young have fledged, as determined through monitoring of the nest. Once the young have fledged, activities can resume within the setback. 1 During breeding season (December-September) this typically means avoiding work within 100 feet of an active nest until juveniles have left the area.

153 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 9 Zander Associates Ephemeral Drainages The proposed footprint of development on the site is located approximately 220 feet southeast of the north drainage and will not encroach into the east drainage except at the driveway crossing location. Approximately 25 feet of the east drainage and some of the associated riparian vegetation will be disturbed for the installation of a culvert. CDFG authorization through Section 1600 (et. seq.) of the Fish and Game Code and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be required. Necessary permits and/or authorizations should be obtained from the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to any activity within the drainage. These agencies may require compensation for the drainage impacts in the form of fees or riparian habitat improvements on-site. In order to maintain the integrity of the riparian corridors associated with the natural drainages, we recommend establishing (e.g. with orange construction fencing) appropriate work boundaries during site development, and keeping landscaped areas and outbuildings outside the riparian zone to the greatest extent feasible. Heritage Tree Removal The Heritage Tree Ordinance for the City of Pacifica requires that a Tree Protection Plan be submitted to the city for the removal of any heritage trees or if any activities are proposed that may impact a heritage tree. The City defines heritage trees as: All trees within the City of Pacifica, exclusive of eucalyptus, which have a trunk with a circumference of fifty inches (approximately sixteen inches in diameter) or more, measured at twenty four inches above the natural grade, or other trees as designated by the City Council. There are no trees within the development envelope. There are a few trees that are adjacent to the building site that are within the area of cleared vegetation, but none of these trees meet the definition of a heritage tree. These trees include a few eucalyptus, which are exempt from heritage tree status; and a few toyon and wax myrtles, all of which have trunks less than sixteen inches in diameter. Further Recommendations As project planning proceeds, we recommend that you consider these additional measures to further help avoid or minimize impacts on biological resources.! Consider landscaping with native species that are consistent with the natural habitat of the surrounding area, including riparian trees and shrubs and native understory species; and avoid the planting of invasive species.

154 Emil Kolev December 19, 2008 Page 10 Zander Associates! Minimize outdoor lighting features, including streetlights and decorative lights, directed away from developments. Artificial light disrupts the natural habits of many indigenous wildlife species. Zander Associates can remain available to assist you with follow-up activities, as necessary. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this assessment. Sincerely, Erin Avery Senior Biologist Attachments Table 1: Special Status Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Drive Property Site Plan provided by client

155 Zander Associates Table 1: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Acanthomintha duttonii (San Mateo thorn-mint) Plant Species Status 1 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum (Franciscan onion) Amsinckia lunaris (bent-flowered fiddleneck) Arctostaphylos andersonii (Anderson s manzanita) Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. franciscana (Franciscan manzanita) Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii (Presidio manzanita) Arctostaphylos imbracta (San Bruno mountain manzanita) Fed/CA/CNPS E/E/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1A E/E/1B --/E/1B Habitat and Blooming Period Findings 2 Known from very uncommon serpentinite vertisol clays in relatively open areas, found in chaparral and valley and foothill grassland habitat; blooming period April through June. Clay soils on dry hillsides at meters in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland; often on serpentine; blooming period May through June. Annual herb found in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland; blooms March-June. Open sites at meters in redwood forest, broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, north coast coniferous forest; blooming period November through April (evergreen). Mostly known from serpentine outcrops in chaparral; blooming period February through April. Open rocky serpentine slopes within chaparral, coastal scrub and coastal grassland; blooming period February through March. Mostly known from a few sandstone outcrops in chaparral and coastal scrub; blooming period February through May. No potential habitat. No serpentine soils present. No potential habitat. Moist woodland habitat inappropriate for species. Limited potential to occur. Requires spring survey Not present. Species not present during survey. Not present. Species not present during survey. Not present. Species not present during survey. Not present. Species not present during survey. Arctostaphylos montaraensis (Montara manzanita) Arctostaphylos pacifica (Pacifica manzanita) Arctostaphylos regismontana (Kings Mountain manzanita) Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus (coastal marsh milk-vetch) Astragalus tener var. tener (alkali milk-vetch) --/--/1B --/E/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B In chaparral and coastal scrub of slopes and ridges; blooming period January through March. Found in chaparral and coastal scrub; blooming period February through April. Granitic or sandstone outcrops in at meters in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral and north coast coniferous forest; blooming period January through April (evergreen) Mesic sites in coastal dunes or along streams or coastal salt marshes at 0-30 meters; blooming period April through October Found on playas, valley and foothill grassland and alkaline vernal pools; blooming period March through June. Not present. Species not present during survey. Not present. Species not present during survey. Not present. Species not present during survey. No potential habitat. Dense woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Moist woodland habitat inappropriate for species.

156 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Carex comosa (bristly sedge) Plant Species Status 1 Fed/CA/CNPS Habitat and Blooming Period Findings 2 --/--/2 Perennial rhizomatous herb found in coastal prairie, marshes and swamps, and valley and foothill grasslands; generally blooms May through September. --/--/1B Found in vernally mesic alkaline sites, generally in coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal salt marsh, and valley and foothill grassland; blooming period May through November. species. Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi (pappose tarplant) Chorizanthe cuspidate var. cuspidata (San Francisco Bay spineflower) Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta (Robust spineflower) Cirsium andrewsii (Franciscan thistle) Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale (Crystal Springs fountain thistle) Cirsium occidentale var. compactum (compact cobwebby thistle) Collinsia multicolor (San Francisco collinsia) Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris (Point Reyes bird's-beak) Dirca occidentalis (Western leatherwood) --/--/1B E/--/1B --/--/1B E/E/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B Sandy soils on terraces and slopes at meters in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie and scrub; blooming period April through July Sandy soils in cismontane woodland openings and coastal dune and scrub habitats; blooms May through September Found in coastal bluff scrub, broadleaved upland forest, and coastal scrub, sometimes in serpentine seeps; blooming period March through July. Serpentine seeps and grassland at meters in valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland and chaparral; blooming period June through July On dunes and in clay in chaparral, coastal scrub and coastal prairie; blooming period April through June. On decomposed shale mixed with humus at meters in closed-cone coniferous forest and coastal scrub; blooming period March through May Coastal salt marsh, generally with spartina, distichlis, salicornia and jaumea at 0-15 meters; blooms June- October. On brushy slopes and mesic sites mostly in mixed evergreen and foothill woodland at meters, found in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest and riparian woodland; blooming period January through March Limited potential to occur. Requires spring survey No potential habitat. Densely vegetated woodland habitat inappropriate for No potential habitat. Moist woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. No sandy soil habitats available on site. Limited potential to occur. Requires spring survey No potential habitat. No serpentine or grassland habitat present on site. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. No coniferous forest or coastal scrub habitat available on site. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. Not present. Species not present during survey.

157 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Plant Species Status 1 Eriophyllum latilobum (San Mateo woolly sunflower) Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana (Hillsborough chocolate lily) Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis (Marin checker lily) Fritillaria liliacea (Fragrant fritillary) Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis (blue coast gilia) Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima (San Francisco gumplant) Helianthella castanea (Diablo helianthella) Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta (seaside tarplant) Herperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia (short-leaved evax) Hesperolinon congestum (Marin western flax) Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea (Kellogg s horkelia) Fed/CA/CNPS E/E/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B Habitat and Blooming Period Findings 2 Found in cismontane woodland, often on road cuts and in serpentine; blooming period May through June. Usually found on serpentine within cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; blooming period March through April. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub and coastal prairie, often on serpentine, meters; February May. Coastal scrub, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grasslands, often on serpentine soils; generally blooms from February-April Coastal dunes and coastal scrub at meters; blooming period April-July. Sandy or serpentine soils on sea bluffs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; blooms June through September. Usually in chaparral/oak woodland interface in rocky azonal soils, in partial shade. Found in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, or valley and foothill grassland; blooming period March through June. Found in grassy valleys and hills, often in fallow fields within coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands; blooming period April through November. --/--/2 Found on sandy bluffs and flats within coastal dunes and coastal bluff scrub; blooming period March through June. T/T/1B --/--/1B In serpentine barrens and in serpentine grassland and chaparral at meters; blooming period April through July Perennial herb found in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats, old dunes and coastal sand hills; blooming period April-September. No potential habitat. No serpentine habitat present on site and understory too dense for species. No potential habitat. No serpentine habitat present on site and understory too dense for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. Limited potential to occur. Requires spring survey No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. Not present. Species not present during survey and habitat inappropriate.

158 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Horkelia marinensis (Point Reyes horkelia) Layia carnosa (beach layia) Plant Species Status 1 Leptosiphon croceus (coast yellow leptosiphon) Leptosiphon rosaceus (rose leptosiphon) Lessingia arachnoidea (Crystal Springs lessingia) Lessingia germanorum (San Francisco lessingia) Lilium maritimum (coast lily) Malacothamnus aboriginum (Indian Valley bush-mallow) Malacothamnus arcuatus (Arcuate bush-mallow) Malacothamnus davidsonii (Davison s bush-mallow) Malacothamnus hallii (Hall s bush-mallow) Fed/CA/CNPS --/--/1B E/E/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B E/E/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B Habitat and Blooming Period Findings 2 Perennial herb found in coastal dunes, coastal prairie, and in coastal scrub in sandy sites; generally blooms May through September On sparsely vegetetated semi-stabilized dunes; blooms March through July. Coastal bluff scrub and coastal prairie; blooms April through May. Coastal scrub, meters; blooming period April through July. Grassy slopes on serpentine at meters in coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland and cismontane woodland, sometimes on roadsides; blooming period July through October Found in open sandy soil relatively free of competing plants within coastal scrub from remnant dunes; blooming period June through October. Historically in sandy soil, often on raised hummocks or bogs, today mostly in roadside ditches in closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, broad leafed upland forest and north coast coniferous forest, meters; blooming period May through August. A perennial deciduous shrub usually found on granitic outcrops and sandy bare soil, often on disturbed soils within cismontane woodland and chaparral; blooms April through October. Gravelly alluvium in chaparral and cismontane woodland at meters; blooming period April through September --/--/1B Sandy washes in coastal scrub, riparian woodland and chaparral at meters; blooming period June through January --/--/1B Some populations on serpentine in chaparral at meters; blooming period May through September Not present. Species not present during survey and habitat inappropriate. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. Limited potential to occur. Requires spring survey Not present. Species not present during survey and habitat inappropriate. Not present. Species not present during survey and habitat inappropriate. Not present. Species not present during survey and habitat inappropriate. Not present. Species not present during survey and habitat inappropriate.

159 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Pedicularis dudleyi (Dudley's lousewort) Plant Species Status 1 Pentachaeta bellidiflora (White-rayed pentachaeta) Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. chorisianus (Choris popcorn-flower) Potentilla hickmanii (Hickman s cinquefoil) Sanicula maritima (adobe sanicle) Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda (San Francisco campion) Triphysaria floribunda (San Francisco owl s clover) Triquetrella caifornica (coastal triquetrella) Fed/CA/CNPS --/R/1B E/E/1B --/--/1B E/E/1B --/R/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B --/--/1B Reptile/Amphibian Species Status 1 Actinemys marmorata (Western pond turtle) Fed/CA --/CSC Habitat and Blooming Period Findings 2 Perennial herb found in cismontane woodland, north coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland; generally blooms April through June Open dry rocky slopes and grassy areas in valley and foothill grassland at meters, often on soils derived from serpentine bedrock; blooming period March through May Mesic sites in chaparral, coastal scrub and coastal prairie at meters; blooming period March through June Freshwater marshes, seeps and small streams in open or forested areas along the coast; blooms April through August Found in moist clay or ultramafic soils within meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, chaparral and coastal prairie, blooming period February through May. Often on mudstone or shale, sometimes on serpentine, in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, coastal bluff scrub, chaparral and coastal prairie at meters; blooming period March through June Coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland on serpentine and non-serpentine substrate, meters; blooming period April-June. A moss growing on soil within coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub. Limited potential to occur. Requires spring survey No potential habitat. Moist woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Understory vegetation too dense for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. Habitat Findings 2 Requires aquatic habitats with permanent or persistent water and protected areas for basking such as partially submerged rocks or logs, floating vegetation mats or open mud banks. Also needs suitable upland habitat of sandy banks or open grassy fields for egg-laying. No suitable habitat. Deep open waters not present. Nearest recorded location is approximately 5.6 miles east of site (CNDDB # 350).

160 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Reptile/Amphibian Species Status 1 Eucyclogobius newberryi (Tidewater goby) Rana draytonii (California red-legged frog) Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia (San Francisco garter snake) Bird Species Geothlypis trichas sinuosa (saltmarsh common yellowthroat) Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus (California black rail) Fed/CA E/CSC T/CSC E/E --/CSC --/T Habitat Findings 2 Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches with fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels. Found in brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County, to the mouth of the Smith River. Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water within streams, marshes, and occasionally ponds with dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation; larvae require weeks of permanent water to develop. Prefers dense vegetative cover and water depths of at least one foot, as well as upland area. Found in vicinity of freshwater marshes, ponds and slow moving streams in San Mateo County and extreme northern Santa Cruz. Freshwater marshes, coastal swales, swampy riparian thickets, brackish and salt marshes, and edges of disturbed weed fields and grasslands that border soggy habitats. Requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting. Requires high marshes with little annual and/or daily fluctuations in water levels. Prefers marshlands with unrestricted tidal influence No suitable habitat. Aquatic habitat on site not appropriate for species. Nearest recorded location is approximately 9 miles north of site (CNDDB # 22). Limited potential. No breeding habitat present on site but limited potential as a dispersal corridor. There are four recorded locations within 1.3 miles of the site (CNDDB #242, 539, 652, 980), the closest being 0.7 mile west of site (CNDDB #980). Limited potential. Aquatic habitat on site not suitable for breeding but limited potential as a dispersal corridor. There are 8 recorded locations in the Montara Mountain 7.5 minute quadrangle but location information is suppressed. No suitable habitat. Water flow in drainage not enough to be suitable for foraging. Nearest recorded location is approximately 2.45 miles north of site (CNDDB # 5). No suitable habitat. Aquatic habitat on site not appropriate for species. Nearest recorded location is approximately 9 miles north of site (CNDDB # 24).

161 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Bird Species Status 1 Melospiza melodia pusillula (Alameda song sparrow) Rallus longirostris obsoletus (California clapper rail) Riparia riparia (bank swallow) Antrozous pallidus (Pallid bat) Fed/CA --/CSC E/E --/T Mammal Species Status 1 Neotoma fuscipes annectens (San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat) Fed/CA --/CSC --/CSC Habitat Findings 2 Resident of salt marsh bordering south arm of San Francisco Bay. Inhabits salicornia marshes, nests low in grindelia bushes (high enough to escape high tides) and in salicornia. Salt marshes bordering bays. Pickleweed and brackish marshes at lower elevations Colonial nester, primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats; requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured soils near water for nests. No suitable habitat. Aquatic habitat on site not appropriate for species. Nearest recorded location is approximately 17.4 miles northeast of site (CNDDB # 19). No suitable habitat. Aquatic habitat on site not appropriate for species. Nearest recorded location is approximately 6.5 miles east of site (CNDDB # 43). No suitable habitat. Appropriate vertical bank habitat for nesting not available. Nearest recorded location is approximately 8.8 miles north of site (CNDDB # 64). Habitat Findings 2 Variety of habitats, most common in open, dry communities with rocky and/or forested areas for roosting Nests in forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense understory. May prefer chaparral and redwood habitats. Nests are constructed of grass, leaves, sticks and feathers. Populations may be limited by availability of nest materials. Potential to occur. Potential roosting habitat present. Nearest recorded location is approximately 5 miles east of site (CNDDB # 294). Potential to occur. Potential nesting materials and habitat habitat present. Nearest recorded location is approximately 4.9 miles east of site (CNDDB # 10).

162 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Mammal Species Status 1 Nyctinomops macrotis (big free-tailed bat) Taxidea taxus (American Badger) Invertebrate Species Callophrys mossii Bayensis (San Bruno elfin butterfly) Danaus plexippus (monarch butterfly) Fed/CA --/CSC --/CSC E/-- Habitat Findings 2 Occur in low lying arid areas in southern California. Needs high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds principally on large moths. Principal habitat requirements include sufficient food, friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground. Grasslands, savannas, and mountain meadows near timberline are preferred. Prey primarily consists of burrowing rodents such as gophers, ground squirrels, marmots, and kangaroo rats. Found in coastal, mountainous areas with grassy ground cover, mainly in the vicinity of San Bruno Mountain, San Mateo County. Colonies are located on steep, northfacing slopes within the fog belt. Larval host plant is Sedum spathulifolium. Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico. Roosts are located in wind-protected tree groves (eucalyptus, Montery pine, Cypress), with nectar and water sources nearby. No suitable habitat. Appropriately arid open habitat not available. Nearest recorded location is approximately 1.2 miles north of site (CNDDB # 20). No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species. Nearest recorded location is approximately 0.65 mile south of site (CNDDB # 127). No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species and larval host plant does not occur on site. Nearest recorded location is approximately 0.48 mile south of site (CNDDB # 14). Potential to occur. Eucalyptus grove provides potential roosting habitat. There are 3 recorded locations in the Montara Mountain 7.5 minute quadrangle but location information is suppressed.

163 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Invertebrate Species Status 1 Euphydryas editha bayensis (Bay checkerspot butterfly) Plebejus icariodes missionensis (Mission blue butterfly) Speyeria callippe callippe (callippe silverspot butterfly) Speyeria zerene myrtleae (Myrtle s silverspot) Fed/CA T/-- E/-- E/-- E/-- Habitat Findings 2 Restricted to native grasslands on outcrops of serpentine soil in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Plantago erecta is the primary host plant; Orthocarpus densiflorus and O. purpurscens are secondary host plants. Inhabits grasslands of the San Francisco peninsula. There are three larval host plants: Lupinus albifrons, L. variicolor, and L. formosus, of which L. albifrons is favored. Restricted to the northern coastal scrub of the San Francisco Peninsula. Hostplant is Viola pedunculata. Most adults found on east facing slopes; males congregate on hilltops in search of females. Restricted to the foggy, coastal dunes/hills of the Point Reyes Peninsula; extirpated from coastal San Mateo County. Larval food plant thought to be Viola adunca. No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species and larval host plant does not occur on site. Nearest recorded location is approximately 7.7 miles northeast of site (CNDDB # 5). No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species and larval host plant does not occur on site. Nearest recorded location is approximately 4.37 miles north of site (CNDDB # 7). No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species and larval host plant does not occur on site. Nearest recorded location is approximately 7.1 miles north of site (CNDDB # 6). No potential habitat. Woodland habitat inappropriate for species and larval host plant does not occur on site. Nearest recorded location is approximately 1.2 miles north of site (CNDDB # 13).

164 Zander Associates Table 1 Cont: Special Status Plant Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur on the Perez Property in Pacifica Fish Species Status 1 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus (Steelhead) Fed/CA T/-- 1. Status Explanations: Federal (Fed) E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act -- = no designation Habitat Findings 2 Coastal basins from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek. No potential habitat. Not enough water flow in onsite drainage to support species. Nearest recorded location is approximately 0.4 mile north of site within San Pedro Creek (CNDDB # 12). California State (CA) R = listed as rare under the California Endangered Species Act E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act CSC = California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern -- = no designation California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1A = plants presumed extinct in California 1B = plants considered rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 = plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 2. Findings based on literature review, field surveys and assessment of habitat types present, and knowledge of species habitat requirements. *Source: Search of the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 2008) occurrences and the California Native Plant Society's On-line Inventory (CNPS 2008) for the Montara Mountain, South San Francisco and Half Moon Bay 7.5- minute USGS quadrangles.

165

166

167 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration B-2: Department of Fish and Game Notice of Lake or Streambed Alteration Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181 City of Pacifica - Kolev Residence Project Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix C: Geotechnical Investigation Report Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3527\ \2 - Draft IS-MND\ _Kolev Residence IS MND.doc

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198