Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEDN 2024-0011CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Initial Study Summary – Environmental Checklist PROJECT NO. DEV24-0075 Environmental Document No. 2024-0011 PROJECT TITLE: Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Concept Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The proposed project could have a “Potentially Significant Impact” for at least one of the environmental factors checked below. Please refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to either reduce these impacts to less than significant levels or require further analysis. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Recreation ☐ Agricultural Resources ☒ Air Quality ☒ Biological Resources ☐ Hazards / Hazardous Materials ☒ Water / Hydrology ☒ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy ☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Noise ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services / Utilities ☐ Utility / Service Systems ☒ Wildfire DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation, the Community Development Director finds that: ☐ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ 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. ☐ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ 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 measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ 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. Kelly Gleason 10/02/24 Prepared by (Print)Date Phil Dunsmore 10/02/24 SignatureReviewedby(Print)Date DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 3 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The City of Atascadero’s environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for completing the Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study includes Staff’s on-site inspection of the project site and surrounding and a detailed review of the information on file for the proposed project. In addition, available background information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and characteristics, geological information, significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water availability, wastewater disposal service, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories and other information relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project. Exhibit A includes the references used, as well as the agencies or groups that were contacted as a part of this initial study. The City of Atascadero uses the checklist to summarize the results of the research accomplished during the initial environmental review of the project. Persons, agencies, or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the environmental review process for a project should contact the Community Development Department, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 or call (805) 461-5000. A. PROPOSED PROJECT Description: The project includes adoption of a Development Agreement and creek realignment concept to facilitate a future multi-family development with up to 42 residential units on a 4.2-acre site. One of the existing properties is currently developed with a single-family residence. The project site is designated with 1.8 acres of wetland habitat; however, recent drought conditions and annual animal grazing have denuded the habitat vegetation. The property contains an identified ephemeral blue-line creek (tributary of Paloma Creek) with a clearly defined flow path. Water enters the site from an existing culvert under El Camino Real and exits through existing culverts under Viejo Camino. The applicant proposes to realign the creek to accommodate the site development and adjust the flood plain designation of the site. The realigned creek channel will be constructed with a naturalized slope on each side. The project requires California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Federal Emergency Management Agency review. General Plan Designation: Public Facilities (PUB) Zoning District: Public (P) Legal Description: THAT PORTION OF LOT 7 OF BLOCK 66 OF ATASCADERO COLONY, IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED OCTOBER 14, 1914 IN BOOK 3, PAGE 97 OF MAPS, AND AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY MAP RECORDED MARCH 26, 1980 IN BOOK 37, PAGE 69 OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS ALL THAT PORTION OF THAT PART OF LOTS 5 AND 6 IN BLOCK 66 OF ATASCADERO COLONY, IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 1914 IN BOOK 3 PAGE 1 ET SEQ., OF MAPS, WHICH WAS CONVEYED TO GERTRUDE HOPPER, BY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 13, 1918 IN BOOK 117, PAGE 331 OF DEEDS, WHICH LIES NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR STATE HIGHWAY PURPOSES CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 1931 IN BOOK 108, PAGE 161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS Assessor parcel number(s): 045-342-009, 045-342-010 Latitude: 5,776,235 Longitude: 2,361,703 DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), Water Quality Control Board (WQCB), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) B. EXISTING SETTING Land use designation: Public Facilities Zoning district: Public Parcel size: 4.2 acres Topography: Flat Average Slope: <5% with 12-15% at the location of the existing residence Vegetation: Annual grasses Existing use: 11450 Viejo Camino: Single Family Residence 11505 El Camino Real: Vacant Lot Surrounding land use: Paloma Park, Residential, Churches and other related facilities, School North: South: East: West: Commercial / Multi-Family Public Zone / Existing Residence Recreation / Multi-Family Residential PUD / Open Space DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS During the initial study process, at least one issue was identified as having a potentially significant environmental effect (see following Initial Study). The potentially significant items associated with the proposed project can be minimized to less than significant levels. CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Have a substantial adverse effect on an adopted scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero reviews all new projects for appropriate building design. New projects must have a design that is sensible within the context of the community. The design must be similar or complimentary to the surrounding developments. Additionally, developers must consider how a project may affect historical and natural resources in and around their site. The promotion of purposeful design helps preserve community character and aesthetic as well as prevent negative impacts on surrounding property values. The subject properties total 4.2-acres consisting of one undeveloped parcel and one single family residential parcel which are both located in the Public (P) zoning district just south of the Viejo Camino and El Camino Real intersection. The surrounding area is composed of mostly Multi-Family Residential and Public zoning designations. There is also approximately 2.2 acres of public recreational facilities just southeast of the project boundary, across Viejo Camino Rd. There is an existing Historic Colony Home adjacent to the project site. The property is located in the Paloma Creek watershed. The property does not contain federally recognized wetlands but may be considered wetlands under State definitions. The General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element provide policies regarding the preservation of natural habitats and the rural character in Atascadero. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton PROPOSED PROJECT: The project includes a Development Agreement and associated zoning and use permit approvals to allow for the establishment of a building envelope and development standards for a future residential project of up to 42 residential units. The Development Agreement would allow for a future residential project and outline the standards upon which it may be developed, including a concept for relocation of the existing drainage channel on-site. Approval of the project would allow the owner to prepare the site (grading and creek realignment) to facilitate future residential development proposal. The subject properties are a combined total of 4.2 acres. One of the existing properties is currently developed with a single-family residence. The Atascadero General Plan and Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) provide thresholds of significance for the aesthetic qualities of new developments. The General Plan Land Use Conservation Element Policies 1.4 and 2.1 specify the avoidance of light pollution and compatibility with existing surrounding neighborhoods. Section 9.4.137 of the AMC regulates exterior lighting to avoid light pollution onto neighboring properties. The Atascadero Municipal code sets objective design standards for new multi-family projects. The Atascadero Municipal Code requires that any exterior lighting be fully shielded and directed in such a way that no glare occurs and that no light source is visible from off-site. All proposed lighting must comply with this code requirement. The City focuses on maintaining a rural character and this is partly achieved by minimizing street lights to only those areas where a need is dictated by safety. There are currently no street lights along the project frontage on El Camino Real and none along the Viejo Camino Frontage. Overall surrounding ambient lighting is relatively low and only includes minimal building mounted lighting on adjacent commercial and residential developments. Because these standards are required by code, no further specific mitigation is required. AES Impact-1: Development of the site will require realignment of the drainage channel and revegetation to naturalize the creekway. Retaining walls will be required to provide level building pads for future development. To ensure that the future development adequately addresses creek context and any adjacent walls, the below mitigation is required. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: AES 1.1: All site retaining walls shall be constructed or clad in a natural looking material that blends with the surrounding site context. Retaining walls shall be dark colored split face block, rock/stone clad, or similar material and/or color profile. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to nonagricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: Preservation of agricultural lands is important to the State of California as they provide economic benefits and important ecosystem services. Historically, urban development in the state has correlated with diminishing farmlands. This trend has led to various legislative measures at the state and local levels to protect vulnerable agricultural resources (California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2015). The California State Department of Conservation identifies, categorizes, and helps preserve important farmland. Their Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program tracks and maps the conversion of farmland into urban development. In particular, those areas that fall under the categories of “Prime Farmland,” “Farmland of Statewide Importance,” or “Unique Farmland” may have an opportunity to receive state funding or take advantage of incentive programs for the if preservation. Currently, the subject underdeveloped properties total 4.2 acres and are located in the Public zoning district. The properties are surrounded by development and are located between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The surrounding parcels include residential, commercial, parks, and quasi-public uses. The site contains wetland habitat under state jurisdiction and an identified ephemeral creek (tributary of Paloma Creek) that flows onward to the Salinas River ¼ mile to the east. The site has historically been grazed for weed control. The project site is not designated as farmland by the California State Department of Conservation and has minimal agricultural potential based on the creek and wetland presence (Figure 4). The site is categorized as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California Department of Conservation (Figure 4). PROPOSED PROJECT: The project includes a Development Agreement and associated zoning and use permit approvals to allow for the establishment of a building envelope and development standards for a future residential project of up to 42 residential units. The Development Agreement would allow for a future residential project and outline the standards upon which it may be developed. Approval of the project would allow the owner to prepare the site (grading and creek realignment) to facilitate future residential development proposal. The project is located in a flood hazard area and portions are within the 100-year flood plain. The proposal includes modifications to the flood plain, flood way, and realignment of the identified ephemeral creek. Other than occasional grazing, due to the flooding nature of the property, minimal property size, and urbanized location, there is no opportunity for agricultural use, thus, there is no impact. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: There are no impacts expected to occur to identified Agricultural resources. 3. AIR QUALITY – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: All new developments have impacts on local air quality that vary in extent depending on construction practices, land use, size, and vehicle trip generation. Poor air quality can have adverse effects on public health including increases in cardiorespiratory diseases (World Health Organization, 2018). The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) helps regional agencies monitor and regulate air quality by identifying and classifying target air pollutants. The City of Atascadero and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) work to create policies and programs to attain and maintain health-based air quality standards. According to SLOAPCD, San Luis Obispo County is at nonattainment status for ozone (O2) based on State and Federal Standards and respirable particulate matter (PM10) based on State standards (Table 1). SLOAPCD assists in the regulation of local air quality standards by administering the 2001 Clean Air Plan (SLO APCD, 2001); implementing and enforcing the Rules and Regulations of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District; and development of documents such as the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLO APCD, 2023) which provides thresholds of significance for evaluation and analysis of air quality impacts from local development projects. Notable among their rules are Rule 401 Visible Pollutants and Rule 402 Nuisance which, in combination with local DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton and state sedimentation and erosion control requirements, allow for the regulation and enforcement of dust and debris from construction sites. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLO County APCD, 2023) provides the following tables with thresholds of significance for construction operations and operational emissions from any new project. Construction Operations Thresholds of Significance Operational Thresholds of Significance GHGs emissions are discussed in the GHG Emissions section of this document. The existing site is composed of two parcels which span approximately 4.2 acres of land in the Public zoning district, south of the El Camino Real and Viejo Camino Road intersection. There is currently a single-family residence developed on one of the parcels and the other remains undeveloped. The surrounding parcels include residential, commercial, parks, and quasi-public uses. Threshold '11 Pollutant Quarterly Tier 1 Quarterly Tier 2Daily ROG +NO*(combined)137 lbs 2 ,5 tons 6 ,3 tons Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)7 lbs 0.13 tons 0.32 tons Fugitive Particulate Matter {PMio },Dust01 2 ,5 tons Greenhouse Gases {CO2,Cl-h,N 20r HFC, CPC ,F65) Amortized and Combined with Operational Emissions (See Below) 1 .Daily and quarterly emission thresholds are based on the California Health £1 Safety Code and the CARS Carl Moyer Guidelines. 2 .Any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres of worked area can exceed the 2.5 ton PM10 quarterly threshold . Threshold '11 Pollutant Daily Annual Ozone Precursors (ROG +NOd'21 25 Ibs/day 25 tons/year Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)'21 1.25 Ibs /day Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM 1D},Dust 25 Ibs/day 25 tons/year CO 550 Ibs /day Greenhouse Gases {CO2,CPb,N 20r HFC,CFC, F 6S) 5ee GHG threshold guidance in Section 3.5 .6. 1 .Daily and annual emission thresholds are based on the California Health &Safety Code Division 26 ,Part 3. Chapter 10,Section 4091S and the CARS Carl Moyer Guidelines for DPM . 2 .CalEEMod -use winter operational emission data to compare to operational thresholds. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is proposing a Development Agreement and associated approvals which would allow for and facilitate the construction of a multi-family residential project with up to 42 units. The project will require grading of a majority of the site, including grading to relocate and enhance the existing waterway. The project site is within 1,000 feet of single-family residences, apartment buildings, and three parks (Figure 5). Grading is assumed to occur over all 4.2-acres of the property. The project has an assumed operational year of 2030. A CalEEMod 2022.1.1.28 model was prepared to estimate construction and operational emissions for the Project and compare them to the thresholds identified above (Attachment 4). AQ Impact-1: The project is aligned with land use policies of the Clean Air Plan and will not obstruct the plan’s ongoing implementation. There is no impact due to Project incompatibilities with the SLO County Clean Air Plan (2003). AQ Impact-2: The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) reports that the county is at nonattainment for Ozone (O3) emissions. They provide the following thresholds of significance for Ozone Precursors (NOx and ROG combined) for any development projects: • Construction Operation Emissions: 137lbs/day and 2.5 tons/quarter • Operational Emissions: 25lb/day and 25 tons/yr. The CalEEMod Summary for this project indicates that the Project will not exceed the operational emissions threshold for Ozone Precursors. However, the Project will exceed the daily and quarterly (Tier 1) thresholds for construction operation emissions of Ozone Precursors, thus, this impact requires mitigation. AQ Impact-3: The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) reports that the county is at nonattainment for Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions. They provide the following thresholds of significance for PM10 emissions for any development projects: • Construction Operation Emissions: 2.5 tons/quarter • Operational Emissions: 25lb/day and 25 tons/yr. SLO APCD further clarifies that project with grading on greater than 4 acres can exceed their construction operation emissions threshold. The CalEEMod Summary for his project indicates that the Project will not exceed the construction operation or operational emissions thresholds for PM10. However, the project construction will involve grading an area of 4.2-acres and is assumed to be capable of exceeding SLO APCD’s construction operation threshold. Additionally, mitigation is required for properties with 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, thus, this impact requires mitigation. AQ Impact-4: SLO APCD establishes a construction operations emissions threshold of 137lbs/day for Ozone Precursors (ROG and NOx) combined. The CalEEMod Summary for this project estimates that the Project will emit a daily maximum of 176lbs/day of NOx and ROG combined during the summer construction period, exceeding the threshold of significance established by SLOAPCD, thus, this impact requires mitigation. AQ Impact-5: Project construction will occur within 1,000 ft of sensitive receptors, including other residential uses, Poloma Creek and Dove creek Park, and Atascadero United Methodist Church. The project is assumed to exceed construction operations thresholds for O3 and PM10 which are DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton considered criteria pollutants with a nonattainment status and therefore exposes nearby sensitive receptors to additional pollutant concentrations, thus, this impact requires mitigation. AQ Impact-6: No impact is anticipated from odors associated with the residential uses proposed by the Project. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: AQ 2.1: The project shall comply with the following SLO APCD Standard Mitigation Measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG)and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner offroad heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation; • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; • All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Electrify equipment when feasible; • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and, • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. AQ 2.2: The project shall comply with the following SLO APCD Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures for projects with nearby sensitive receptors and/or earthwork exceeding 4-acres to minimize nuisance impacts and to significantly reduce fugitive dust emissions: • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; • Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems, in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. Please note that during drought conditions, water use may be a concern and the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. • All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed; • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114; • “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent Track Out, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices require periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified. • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible; • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD. Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. AQ 2.3: The Project shall comply with the following SLO APCD Diesel Idling Restrictions for Construction Phases to reduce air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; • Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible; and, • Signs that specify the no idling requirements must be posted and enforced at the construction site. • Idling Restrictions for On-road Vehicles. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit consistent with Section 2485 of Title 13, the California Code of Regulations • Idling Restrictions for off-Road Equipment. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind off-road equipment operators of the 5-minute idling limit pursuant to Section 2449(d)(3) of the ARB’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton APCD and City staff shall monitor implementation of Mitigation Measures during construction. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed above will reduce all anticipated air quality impacts to an insignificant level. 4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: Greenhouse gases (GHG) including carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide(N2O), fluorinated gases, and water vapor, can cause significant harm to the environment and have adverse effects public health. The City of Atascadero and the San Luis Obispo County Air Quality Control District (SLO APCD) attempt to regulate GHG emissions to promote environmental and public health as well as energy efficiency. The City of Atascadero’s Climate Action Plan (2014) (CAP) acts as the cities primary plan for Greenhouse Gas reduction strategies. However, the CAP only identified a city wide GHG reduction target through the year 2020. While the strategies outlined in the CAP are still valuable tools by which to reduce City-wide GHG emissions, the City must presently rely on Countywide reduction targets for evaluation project-level GHG emissions. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLO County APCD, 2023) provides Greenhouse Gas (GHG) thresholds that are projected through the year 2045 based on Countywide emission inventories and required state emission reduction targets. The document additionally provides screening criteria that utilizes project size to determine whether a project would have significant GHG emissions based on it assumed operational year through 2045. SLO APCD establishes an operational emissions threshold of 650 MT/CO2e/year for projects with a projected operational year of 2030. Based on their 2030 Operational Year Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 3), a single-family residential project within the urbanized area would need construct at least 43 units to have significant impacts related to its GHG emissions. The site where the project is proposed is located on a 4.2-acre site in the Public zoning district. The surrounding parcels include multi-family and single-family residential developments, commercial uses, parks, and quasi-public uses. Currently, one of the subject properties is undeveloped and does not contribute GHG emissions to the environment; the other is developed with a single-family residence. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is proposing a Development Agreement and associated entitlements that would allow for and facilitate the future development of a multi-family residential project with up to 42 residential units. Future access to the site would be from Viejo Camino. GHG Impact 1: The Project will not conflict with the City of Atascadero’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Since there is no conflict with the adopted CAP, then the impact is insignificant. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton GHG Impact 2: SLO APCD’s project screening criteria indicates that a single family residential project would need to include at least 43 units to surpass their 2030 operational emissions threshold of 650 MT/CO2e/year. The Project includes only 42 residential units. Since the project does not surpass the threshold provided by SLOAPCD, then the impact is insignificant. GHG Impact 3: There are no cumulative impacts anticipated because there are no major or significantly similar development projects occurring in the vicinity of the project. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No significant impacts are anticipated. No further mitigation is required. 5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or CDFW and USFWS? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as the native tree 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero, as well as San Luis Obispo County and the state of California, emphasize the protection of their diverse ecosystems and the vulnerable species to which they provide habitats. The existing site is composed of two parcels which span approximately 4.2 acres of land in the Public zoning district, south of the El Camino Real and Viejo Camino Road intersection. There is currently a single-family residence developed on one of the parcels and the other remains undeveloped. A biological resources assessment prepared for the project site by Terra Verde Environmental Consulting (2019 and 2020) provides existing biologic characteristics of the site. According to the assessment, the site hosts a blue line creek and State recognized wetlands. According to the wetland delineation performed by Terra Verde, the existing site does not meet the criteria for federally recognized wetlands. An updated assessment addendum was prepared in 2024 by JBD Environmental Consulting to address any change of conditions to the site and provide confirmation of the previously identified Mitigation Measures. The site is designated with 1.8 acres of freshwater emergent wetland habitat according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory Mapper (Figure 6); however, recent drought conditions and annual animal grazing have denuded the habitat vegetation. There are existing restored wetlands to the west of the property across El Camino Real from the project site. The property also contains an identified blue-line creek with a clearly defined flow path (Figure 7). Water enters the site from an existing culvert under El Camino Real and exits through existing culverts under Viejo Camino. The site has low suitability for hosting special status species due to past land uses. However, the site may potentially serve as seasonal habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats. Nonnative plant species compose the majority of the vegetation on the site (75%) but native plant species are still present. PROPOSED PROJECT: The project proposes the adoption of a Development Agreement with the City and associated entitlements, including a PD Overlay Zone and Use Permit for conceptual relocation of the creek and identification of developable areas. The Development Agreement will allow for and facilitate the construction of up to 42 residential units, designed consistent with Municipal Code standards. The applicant proposes to realign the creek to accommodate future site development and adjust the floodway delineation through the site. A biological assessment and federal wetland assessment was completed by Terra Verde Environmental Consulting in January and March of 2019. Soil samples and hydrology were assessed at locations containing visible wetland vegetation, limiting the scope of the analysis to the creek channel. Based on this analysis, it was determined that no federal wetlands exist at the time of assessment as the test areas only met 2 of the 3 qualifying criteria for federal wetlands. However, since the State of California recognizes single criteria wetlands, this area was determined to meet guidelines for State recognized wetland habitat. According to the biological assessment, a total of 0.14 acres of the ephemeral drainage channel where wetland indicators were present may be permanently lost or altered by the proposed development, depending on future development specifics. The creek would be realigned to allow for the construction of flat developable areas on-site. The creek inlet and outfall from the site would remain the same as existing. The realigned creek channel is required by the terms of the Development Agreement to be realigned in a natural manner without sharp turns or angles and prohibits armoring or the use of man-made structures to define the creek channel. Instead, the channel must be designed and constructed with naturalized, sloped banks. Certain drainage control features such as rip rap are permitted as are culverts for any pedestrian or vehicle crossings. The project requires California Department of DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Federal Emergency Management Agency review. The Atascadero General Plan provides thresholds of significance for impacts to biological resources. The following policies from the Atascadero General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation (LOC) Element address development of sensitive, natural areas: 1. LOC 6.1: Ensure that development does not degrade scenic and sensitive areas, including historic sites, creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands, woodlands, hillsides and other valuable habitats. 2. LOC Policy 8.1: Ensure that development along Atascadero Creek, Graves Creeks, the Salinas River, blue line creeks, and natural springs, lakes, or other riparian areas does not interrupt natural flows or adversely impact riparian ecosystems and water quality. The implementation programs associated with these policies call for the preservation of sensitive areas, minimization of land disturbance, and support of floodable terraces. LOC Program area 8.1.3 specifically requires for waterways to be maintained in their natural state and prohibits concrete channelization. Additionally, LOC Program Area 8.2.2 requires a 20-foot setback from any blue-line creek to proposed grading and development. The proposed project includes realignment of the creek to accommodate development of the site. The creek channel will be reconstructed in a natural state with vegetated banks. Standards adopted through the Development Agreement will require a minimum 20-foot setback to any structures, including retaining walls. Construction may impact trees on the property that are potential nesting and roosting sites for special status species. BIO Impact-1: Demolition of the existing residence and any planned removal of ornamental trees may result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds if construction occurs during the typical avian nesting period (February 01 through August 31), as well as roosting bats. Further, the grassland habitat areas on site, although disturbed, may provide suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting species. Impacts may occur due to habitat loss or construction related disturbances that may deter roosting or nesting, or cause nests to fail, thus this impact is requires mitigation. BIO Impact-2: The biological assessment of the site determined that approximately 0.8 acres fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of engineers and 0.14 acres of existing ephemeral drainage will be altered to accommodate development of the site. The development of the property will require grading in areas containing State recognized wetland habitat, thus the impact requires mitigation. BIO Impact-3: The project proposes to realign an existing jurisdictional creek to accommodate development of the project site. The City’s General Plan requires waterways to be maintained in a natural state and that development adhere to a 20-foot setback, thus, the impact requires mitigation. BIO Impact-4: The special status species botanical surveys completed remain valid for a period of 5-years. As the Development Agreement extends entitlements to 10-years, and current studies were completed in 2020, updated studies will be required prior to construction, thus, the impact requires mitigation. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton BIO Impact-5: The City has established a zoning regulation that requires a 20-foot setback off blue line creeks. The setback distance is defined in terms of the distance from the edge of the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). During the survey, JBD Environmental Consulting measured an average width of 13 feet for the OHWM. To ensure the project does not conflict with local policies and ordinances, mitigation is required. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: BIO 1-1: Pre Construction Surveys for Roosting Bats: Within 30 days prior to removal of existing structures and/or mature trees, a sunset survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if bats are roosting on site. If bats are present, a follow-up acoustic monitoring survey shall be completed to determine, if feasible, which species are present. If roosts of special-status bat species are identified and will be impacted during the proposed project, CDFW will be consulted to determine appropriate measures to be implemented. If it is determined that no special-status bats are present, the project shall proceed under the guidance of a qualified biologist, in a manner that minimizes impacts to individual bats and roosts (e.g., conducting work only during the day or installing one-way exclusions prior to work). BIO 1-2: Pre Construction Surveys for Nesting Birds: If work is planned to occur between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall survey the area for nesting birds within one week prior to activity beginning on site. If nesting birds are located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non-listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work will begin until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation CDFW, and/or the USFWS. BIO 2-1: Protection of Hydrologic Resources: Construction within and immediately adjacent to the drainage shall occur only when conditions are dry. For short-term, temporary stabilization, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs), which shall be implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the channel during construction. Acceptable stabilization methods include the use of weed-free, natural fiber (i.e., nonmonofilament) fiber rolls, jute or coir netting, and/or other industry standards. BMPs shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction period. In addition, the following general measures shall be implemented during construction: • The limits of disturbance within the existing drainage feature shall be clearly shown on all sites plans and flagged within the drainages prior to project implementation. All construction personnel shall be directed to avoid impacts to the areas immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed development including the existing culvert features located at El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. • All equipment and materials shall be stored out of the streambed at the end of each working day, and secondary containment shall be used to prevent leaks and spills of potential contaminants from entering the stream. • During construction, washing of concrete, paint, or equipment and refueling and maintenance of equipment shall occur only in designated areas a minimum of 50 feet from all drainages and aquatic features. Sandbags and/or sorbent pads shall be available to prevent water and/or spilled fuel from entering drainages. • Construction equipment shall be inspected by the operator on a daily basis to ensure that equipment is in good working order and no fuel or lubricant leaks are present. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton BIO 2-2: Compensatory Mitigation Plan: A compensatory mitigation plan shall be developed to offset permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas. The exact details and performance criteria of the restoration plan shall be determined during agency coordination with CDFW, RWQCB, and the Corps, as necessary. Stabilization and restoration measures may include the installation of BMPs and/or revegetation using native seed mixes and plantings. Prior to project initiation, all applicable agency permits with jurisdiction over the project area (i.e., Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB) should be obtained. Additional mitigation measures required by these agencies would be implemented as necessary. BIO 2-3: Agency Permitting: Prior to issuance of any permits for grading or construction on-site, the applicant shall obtain permits from the following agencies, and any other agencies as necessary: • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Any mitigation measures required by the above listed permits shall be implemented to their fullest extent. BIO 3-1: Creek Channel Naturalization: The realigned creek shall be constructed in a manner which maintains and enhances natural flows and vegetation. A minimum 20-foot setback shall be maintained from the top of creek bank to any structures. Vehicular or pedestrian crossings of the re-aligned creek shall be permitted as part of any future development. Such crossings shall be designed as culvert crossings and shall obtain any required permits from agencies prior to construction. BIO 3-2: Wetland Restoration: Should wetland impacts occur, and wetland restoration be required on-site, the wetlands shall be monitored for a period of not less than 5-years. Annual reports from a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the appropriate agency addressing any irrigation modifications or replanting that may be required to ensure successful naturalization of the restored wetland habitat. A contract with a qualified biologist shall be entered into prior to final of the development permit. BIO 4-1: Special Status Species Plant Surveys: Prior ground disturbing activities and when plants with potential to occur are in a phenological stage conducive to positive identification (i.e., usually during the blooming period for the species), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for special status plant species within the project site. Valid botanical surveys will be considered current for up to five years; if construction has not commenced within five years of the most recent survey, botanical surveys must be repeated. BIO 5-1: Implementation of Best Management Practices: • Prior to ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities, a setback area of 20-feet from the drainage will be fenced with orange construction fencing and signed to prohibit entry. Fencing should be located a minimum of 20 feet from the OHWM and shall be maintained throughout the construction or until regulatory permits to impact the drainage have been acquired. • To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control best management practices (i.e., installation of silt fencing) will be implemented to minimize adverse effects on the drainage. The silt fencing shall be installed prior to commencing construction in adjacent areas and maintained throughout construction or until regulatory permits to impact the drainage have been acquired. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton • Any substances which could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities will be prevented from entering the drainage. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 50 feet from the drainage and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward the drainage. Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan will be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. 6. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero recognizes the impact of various cultures and ecosystems that have shaped it over generations. Therefore, the City, as well as the County and State, make an effort to preserve cultural resources, known or discovered, during the development of new projects. The existing property is a 4.2 acre, underdeveloped parcel located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and child care facilities. An existing ephemeral creek (tributary of Paloma Creek) meanders through the project site and flows into the Salinas River approximately ¼ mile to the east. The site contains identified wetlands. There is an existing Historic Colony Home located on the parcel directly adjacent to the project site to the south. The City of Atascadero’s General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element Programs 6.2.4-6 require the mitigation and noticing of pertinent parties when archaeological discoveries are made in the City. The AMC lists standards to be adhered to should archeological remains be discovered during the development process which include the cessation of all construction activity until proper local, state, and federal protocol is completed. (AMC 9-4.162) PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is proposing a Development Agreement which would facilitate and allow for future development of the site with up to 42 residential units. The existing creek is proposed to be realigned to accommodate future development of the site. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton According to the City’s internal database, the nearest known archeological area is located 1/3 of a mile from the site. The site contains an ephemeral drainage and identified State jurisdictional wetlands. The site has been grazed for a number of years and is subject to annual flooding. A cultural study was prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc dated August 2020. In accordance with AB52, early notification was sent to all tribal communities claiming jurisdiction over the area. Applied Earthworks conducted a records search, document review, tribal outreach, and a field survey. No historic or archeological resources were identified and Applied Earthworks recommended no further action or mitigation under Federal guidelines. CR Impact-1: The City of Atascadero’s GIS database does not list archaeological sites on or adjacent to the subject property. This does not eliminate the possibility of new resources being discovered. The project site is adjacent to a tributary to Paloma Creek not far from the Salinas River. The applicant’s cultural consultant and tribal consultation concluded that no further action is needed, thus no mitigation is required. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is necessary. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Result in the exposure to or production of unstable earth conditions including the following: • Landslides; • Earthquakes; • Liquefaction; • Land subsidence or other similar hazards? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Be within a California Geological Survey “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone, or other known fault zone? (consultant Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication #42) ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Result in soil erosion, topographic changes, loss of topsoil or unstable soil conditions from proposed improvements such as grading, vegetation removal, excavation or use of fill soil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Include any structures located on known expansive soils? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Safety element relating to geologic and seismic hazards? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: Developing on land with unsuitable soil or geologic conditions can create hazardous environments for people, structures, and infrastructure on and around a site. The environmental review process helps to promote safe building and development practices by ensuring precautions are taken to minimize risk where necessary. The site spans two parcels and is approximately 4.2 acres of underdeveloped land in the Public zoning district between Viejo Camino and El Camino Real. There is an existing single-family residence on one parcel and the other parcel is vacant. Due to the low-lying nature of the site, the property is subject to annual seasonal flooding. Approximately 50% of the site is within the FEMA mapped flood zone A with Base Flood Elevations (BFE) determined (Figure 13). This project is subject to, and must comply with, the Flood Damage Prevention Regulations as adopted by the City of Atascadero. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service provides GIS data regarding the site’s stability, and risk of hazards. The biological assessment of the site identified three soil types: 1) still clay loam; 2) Santa Lucia-Lopez Complex; and 3) San Andreas-Arujo Complex. Each of these soil types is associated with their own slope average (Figure 8) The USDA GIS data classifies the site’s soil drainage as “Moderately Drained” with “Moderate” erodibility (Figure 10) and shrink-swell capacity, and slow percolation. Additionally, this data also shows that approximately 3.6 acres of the property are at high risk for liquefaction and another 1.4 acres are at high risk for landslide (Figure 11). The average slope of the combined site is less than 10% according to estimations from the City’s GIS database. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is proposing approval of a Development Agreement and creek relocation concept to facilitate and vest a 42-unit multi-family development. The project will be located on two existing parcels southwest of Paloma Creek Park between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino that are covered with moderately expansive soil. There is 1.8 acres of historically identified wetland on the project site; however, the recent drought conditions and grazing activities have affected this resource. The biological assessment prepared for the project in early 2018 identified 0.14 acres of ephemeral drainage on site and no federally recognized triple criteria wetlands, however, these wetlands do meet State jurisdictional criteria. The project proposes to realign the existing creek and modify the existing floodway. The Atascadero General Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) list and map the potential ground shaking sources that can threaten developments within its boundaries as seen on Table 3. The California Department of Conservation developed the Earthquake Hazard Zone Application which allows users to determine if a parcel is located in an earthquake fault zone. The subject parcel is not within an identified Earthquake Fault Zone. Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) 9-4.139 and the California Uniform Building Code require a grading plan and soils analysis for a project that involves grading, construction of habitable structures, and drainage modifications. Furthermore, AMC 9-4.145 requires a sedimentation and DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton erosion control plan for any nonagricultural project where land is disturbed. These plans must be submitted to and reviewed by the City Engineer and Building Department for project approval or modification. The Atascadero Municipal Code also addresses most issues related to geologic impacts prior to approval of any project. These standards address issues related to landslide, liquefaction, and land subsidence by requiring geologic report applicable sites. AMC 9-4.139 & 9-4.145 address issues related to soil erosion and topsoil loss by requiring a grading plan and a sedimentation and erosion control plan. AMC and building code regulations would also ensure that the project is consistent with General Plan and LHMP policy regarding geologic and Seismic hazards. Finally, the General Plan Safety and Noise Element Goal 4 and its respective policies and programs address geologic and seismic hazards as they affect development and emergencies. The Atascadero Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) also provides mitigation strategies addressing geologic hazards. Mitigation Goals 4, 5, and 7 promote the enforcement of safe building design, proper environmental studies and documentation, and feasible mitigation strategies for all new developments. Project consistency with these requirements and standards are addressed as part of the building permit process prior to construction. GEO Impact-1: GIS Data from the United States Geologic Survey characterizes soil on the property as having high risk of landslide and liquefaction with moderate shrink-swell capacity. The Atascadero Municipal Code requires a geologic report to be submitted prior to permits being approved. The Atascadero Municipal Code requires a sedimentation and erosion control plan to be submitted to the City Engineer for revision and approval review. Since the Atascadero Municipal Code addresses issues geologic hazards, then the impact is insignificant. GEO Impact -2: The project site contains areas mapped by FEMA as flood zone A with Base Flood elevations determined. The City has adopted Flood Damage Prevention Regulations as established by FEMA and FEMA approval will be required prior to waterway modification. The project is subject to compliance with these adopted regulations; therefore, the impact is insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero attempts to regulate land-use in a way that reduces risk for damage during disasters as well exposure to hazardous materials. Where this cannot be achieved, the City has created regulations and standards to protect public health and safety as much as possible. The existing property is a 4.2-acre, underdeveloped parcel located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. The site is in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to any wildland areas. The nearby park is an active recreation park with groomed ball fields and irrigated grass areas. The subject site is within the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface zone (Figure 12), however, the surrounding area is developed with higher intensity residential and commercial uses which reduce the wildland fire risk of the DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton site. The Atascadero Fire Department estimates response time for an emergency on the site would be less than 5 minutes. The Atascadero General Plan anticipates the full development of the site and the fire department has created an evacuation plan for the community should there be a need to evacuate. The General Plan also addresses the construction of new developments in high fire risk areas by requiring fire resistant material to be used in construction as well as the use of defensible spaces around all structures. Furthermore, AMC requires compliance to fire code standards and review of new projects by the Atascadero Fire Department. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is proposing a Development Agreement and associated entitlements that would allow for an facilitate up to 42 residential units on the project site area. The project would also include modifications to the existing waterway. The parcels being developed total to 4.2 acres in size. Residential uses are not anticipated to store or required any hazardous materials. City and State building regulations provide thresholds of significance for the project. The AMC requires that all new projects be reviewed by the Fire Department for compliance with the California Fire Code or to make modifications where necessary. All new projects are expected to conform to the California Fire Code as well as the local modifications found in AMC 4-7. HAZ Impact-1: The Development Agreement and associated approvals will facilitate the construction of up to 42 residential units on a site identified as being at high risk for fire hazards. The project will be reviewed by the local fire marshal for compliance with local and state fire codes prior to building permits being issued. Since the Atascadero Municipal code addresses fire hazards before building permits are issued, the impact is insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is necessary. 9. WATER QUALITY / HYDROLOGY – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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 preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: Alterations to existing landscapes, developed or otherwise, can impact hydrology on the site by increasing run off, risk of flooding, or contaminating ground water. These impacts to the hydrologic cycle can have adverse effects on human health as well as the health of existing ecosystems. The site currently contains an identified jurisdictional creek and historic wetlands. Drought conditions and grazing activities over the past years have degraded the habitat value of the site DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton but seasonal flooding during average rainfall years occurs over a large portion of the site. Approximately 50% of the site is mapped as floodway and/or 100-year flood zone by FEMA. The urbanized areas of the Central Coast are divided into ten water management zones (WMZs) based on the receiving water type and common watershed processes. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) provides maps showing that the site is located in Water WMZ 1 (CRWQCB, 2013) (Figure 9). The California Department of Water Resources provides a tool to assess the boundaries of significant groundwater basins in California. The subject site is not within any significant groundwater basin. The nearest basin is the Atascadero Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Basin on the eastern side of the City approximately 0.68 miles from the project site. The Atascadero Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) (Wallace Group, 2009) and the central coast post construction stormwater requirements (CRWQCB, 2013) provide standards to protect water quality and control runoff from new developments. These documents require mitigation or alterations in design for projects that significantly increase the amount of impervious surfaces. Additionally, they address erosion control for new developments. Moreover, The SWMP accounts for all current and future development slated to impact the existing drainage infrastructure. Construction erosion control is now really driven by the NPDES General Permit for MS4’s (2013) and the Construction Stormwater General Permit (2022). PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is proposing a Development Agreement and associated approvals to allow for and facilitate the future construction of up to 42 residential units. The project approvals include modifications to the existing waterway to create a more feasible development area. The parcels proposed for development total to 4.2 acres in size. There are 1.8 acres of historically identified wetland on the project site; however, the recent drought conditions and grazing activities have affected this resource. The biological assessment prepared for the project in early 2018 identified 0.14 acres of ephemeral drainage on site and no federally recognized triple criteria wetlands, however, the State recognizes single criteria wetlands, and the Federal definition may change over time. The project proposed to realign the existing creek and modify the existing floodway. Regulations created by City of Atascadero SWMP, AMC, and the CRWQCB are used as thresholds of significance regulation for issues concerning water quality and hydrology for the proposed project. In addition, CDFW, and ACE have permitting authority over the project due to the proposed realignment of the existing creek and modifications to the mapped floodway. The City of Atascadero Storm Water Management Plan provides goals and implementation measures for run off control through best practices. Many of these goals are achieved through following state standards for storm water runoff. The central coast post construction stormwater requirements provide standards to protect water quality and ensure runoff control from new developments (CRWQCB, 2013). The proposed mini-storage facility is subject to post-construction requirements for stormwater rate control and water quality. Development of the subject property will modify the existing flood zone as delineated on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). WQH Impact-1: The applicant is proposing to realign an existing jurisdictional drainage and re-contour the site to accommodate the proposed development. Grading includes elimination of the existing creek channel and fill of the existing mapped wetland area, thus this impact requires mitigation. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton WQH Impact-2: The project is proposing to place fill in the existing FEMA mapped flood zone A (floodway), which has the potential to increase flooding on adjacent properties; therefore, the impact requires mitigation. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: WQH 1-1: The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits form the Regional Water Quality Control Board. WQH 2-1: Prior to issuance of any building permits, a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) must be issued and received by the City Engineer. WQH 2-2: The project design and construction shall comply with the CLOMR. Prior to a final inspection or Occupancy release, the developer must apply for and be issued a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and a copy filed in the Office of the City Engineer. 10. LAND USE & PLANNING – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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 adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero regulates land uses in an attempt to create a sensible, safe, and healthy landscape for the residents of the City. Policies regarding land use planning and conservation can be found in the Atascadero General Plan and associated documents. The City’s General plan calls for a 20-foot setback from all jurisdictional creeks and watercourses. According to the Atascadero General Plan Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element, the Public zoning district is designated for public and quasi-public land uses such as churches, child care facilities, schools, parks, membership organizations, etc. A Development Agreement can override zoning provided that the proposed uses are consistent with the overall goals, policies, and intensity anticipated in the General plan based on the surrounding uses and zoning designations. The surrounding parcels include multi-family and single-family residential developments, commercial uses, parks, and quasi-public uses. Additional multi-family uses would be consistent with eh surrounding neighborhood. The subject site is 4.2-acre in the Public zoning district of Atascadero. There is an existing ephemeral creek running through the project site. The property has historically flooded during the DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton rainy season and wetlands have been identified in the past. The current drought and grazing practices have diminished wetland characteristics. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is preparing a Development Agreement and associated entitlements to allow for and facilitate a future multi-family development with up to 42 residential units. The developmetn concept includes realignment of the existing waterway and includes parameters and standards for future development to ensure environmentally sensitive treatment of the realigned creek channel and adherence to agency permits, as required. The parcels being developed total to 4.2 acres in size. There is 1.8 acres of historically identified wetland on the project site; however, the recent drought conditions and grazing activities have affected this resource. The biological assessment prepared for the project in early 2018 identified 0.14 acres of ephemeral drainage on site and no federally recognized triple criteria wetlands, however, reassessment of jurisdiction will need to occur at time of grading application to determine if additional State or Federal standards apply as they can change from time to time. LUP Impact-1: The project proposes to realign an existing jurisdictional creek to accommodate development of the project site. The City’s General Plan requires waterways to be maintained in a natural state and that development adhere to a 20-foot setback from the ordinary high-water mark. The Development Agreement includes standards and requirements to maintain an adequate setback and sets standards for adjacent development and permitting through jurisdictional agencies, thus, the impact requires mitigation. MITIGATION/CONCLUSION: LUP 1: See BIO-3-1 and BIO 5-1 11. MINERAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: Mineral resources are protected in the state of California for their economic benefits. PROPOSED PROJECT: The project site is a historic low point and subject to annual flooding. There have historically been mapped wetlands on the site. The applicant is proposing a Development Agreement to facilitate future development of a multi-family project with up to 42 residential units and associated site amenities. There are no known mineral resources in the area of the proposed project, thus, the impacts are insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No impacts are expected to occur. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton 12. NOISE – Will the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero regulates noise pollution from any given development because of the potential for adverse effects on human health and safety. The existing property is a 4.2 acre, underdeveloped site located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. The site is in an urbanized area. The nearby park is an active recreation park. The Atascadero Municipal code provides the threshold of significance for noise created during the construction process of new developments. The AMC states that all noises created by construction activities are exempt from City regulation as long as the activities occur between seven AM and nine PM. During the hours of nine PM to seven AM the maximum allowable decibel range for all noise created is sixty-five decibels. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is proposing adoption of a Development Agreement to allow for future development of the site with a multi-family project. The project also includes realignment of the existing creek channel. The subject site totals 4.2-acres in size. Large grading equipment will be needed to complete site development. Fill dirt will be brought to the site during grading construction activities. Impacts related to construction will be temporary. The continued residential use is not expected to generate high volumes of noise. NOI Impact-1: Grading and construction will create a temporary source of noise pollution. The Atascadero Municipal Code exempts construction activities from the city’s noise regulations during the hours of 7am and 9pm, and limits noise to a maximum of sixty-five decibels during the hours of nine PM and seven AM. Since the Atascadero Municipal code address noise concerns, the impact is insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is necessary. 13. POPULATION & HOUSING – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The State of California aims to ensure adequate housing and quality living environments by requiring cities to take detailed accounts of current housing stock and needs as well as projections of expected future needs. The Atascadero General Plan Housing Element identifies housing related goals for the city and methods by which to achieve them. The General Plan Housing Element and existing data from the United States Census provide a snapshot of population growth in the City of Atascadero. The City’s population grew by about 14.1 percent in the 1990s. From 2010 to 2018 City population grew by only 7% percent. Housing needs are reported by the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments (SLOCOG). SLOCOG provides the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for incorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. Allotments are further categorized into affordability types. Each city is then responsible for dedicating the needed resources and amending their General Plan Housing Element to attain their allotment of housing. The existing property is a 4.2-acre, underdeveloped site located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The project site is currently comprised of 2 parcels, DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton one is vacant and the other contains a single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. The site is in an urbanized area. The nearby park is an active recreation park. According to the Atascadero General Plan Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element, the Public zoning district is designated for public and quasi-public land uses such as churches, child care facilities, schools, parks, membership organizations, etc. A Development Agreement can modify uses and the development potential of a property providing that the uses remain consistent with overarching General Plan policies and overall surrounding land uses. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project consists of a Development Agreement and associated approvals to allow for and facilitate future development of a multi-family project with up to 42 dwelling units. The existing non-conforming residence would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. PH Impact-1: The proposed project will eliminate one single-family residence and replace the underdeveloped land with a multi-family project with up to 42 units. The surrounding area is comprised of higher-density residential developments in addition to residential serving uses such as churches, childcare facilities, neighborhood serving commercial and an active recreation park. To meet State housing needs, the City looks at potential locations to expand housing opportunities that have proximity to good and services and are within the urbanized area so as to limit sprawl. The subject property is surrounded by uses that are consistent and support residential uses and the number of proposed units is minor and designed to infill an existing neighborhood area, thus; the impact of the project on population and housing is insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is necessary. 14. PUBLIC SERVICE: Will the proposed project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered public services in any of the following areas: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Emergency Services (Atascadero Fire)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Police Services (Atascadero Police)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Public Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: New developments in the City of Atascadero place increased demand on local public service. For this reason, the City must ensure that existing services and future service and facility expansions can accommodate expected new developments. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton The existing property is a 4.2-acre, underdeveloped site located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The project site is currently comprised of 2 parcels, one is vacant and the other contains a single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. The site is in an urbanized area. The nearby park is an active recreation park. Sewer is available in both El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The site is along a major transit route and is in close proximity to residential serving goods and services. Based on findings from the 2003 Taussig Study, revenue from new residential development, including property tax revenues, vehicle licensing fees, sales taxes, and other revenues are insufficient to cover the maintenance and emergency services costs of new development. Based on the revenue projections from the Taussig Study and consistent with adopted Council financial policies, the City requires the cost of maintenance and emergency services for new residential projects to be funded through annexation into the citywide community facilities district (CFD). PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project requests a Development Agreement and associated creek realignment plan to confirm a conceptual development area for a future multi-family development with up to 42 residential units. The project will increase the intensity of uses on the subject parcel; however, the proposed future uses are consistent with uses in the surrounding area. The City has established a Community Facilities District (CFD) to account for the increased cost to City services for each new residential unit. Per City policy, annexation into the CFD will be required prior to permit issuance or map recordation, whichever occurs first. Because the development will be required to annex into the citywide CFD to offset emergency service and park service costs associated with new residents, the impact is insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No impacts are expected to occur. 15. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero attempts to provide quality open spaces and recreation areas for its residents as it continues to grow. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton The Atascadero General Plan recognizes the importance of access to parks and recreation areas. The General Plan Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Element Program areas 11.1.3-5 promote this access and aim for a ratio of five acres of open space for every one thousand residents. Associated development impact fees are used to fund maintenance of existing parks and potential acquisition of new open spaces to make these goals achievable. The existing property is a 4.2-acre, underdeveloped site located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The project site is currently comprised of 2 parcels, one is vacant and the other contains a single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. The site is in an urbanized area. The nearby park is an active recreation park with ball fields, play equipment, and walking paths. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project consists of a Development Agreement to allow for and facilitate the future construction of a multi-family development with up to 42 residential units. The City requires development impact fees to be paid for each new residential unit. A portion of these fees provides funding for to acquisition and development of new park and recreation facilities. Each new residential unit will be required to pay fees prior to occupancy. Because the development will be required to pay parkland and openspace fees as part of construction permitting, the impact is insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No impacts are expected to occur. 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero strives to provide a quality transportation network that is feasible and practical for the needs of the City. The Atascadero General Plan Circulation Element sets policies aimed at encouraging the use of different transportation modalities and ensuring network efficiency. Regional highways and county roads fall under the jurisdiction of CalTrans and the County of San Luis Obispo. SLOCOG provides standards and regulations for countywide transportation networks. The City of Atascadero General Plan Circulation Element provides the threshold of significance for transportation and traffic. The City has designated level C as the minimum level of service required of all City facilities. The Circulation Element accounts for expected future land uses as projected by the Land Use, Conservation and Open Space Element. Additionally, the City of Atascadero requires impact fees to be paid towards public services that include the local circulation system. The existing property is a 4.2 acre, underdeveloped site located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The project site is currently comprised of 2 parcels, one is vacant and the other contains a non-conforming single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. The site is in an urbanized area. El Camino real is categorized as an Arterial and Viejo Camino is categorized as a Collector. The proposed project site is surrounded by a mix of uses, including multi-family and single-family homes, churches, a community garden, a local-serving market, and parks. Additional restaurant and retail uses have been approved at the nearby Dove Creek project. The project site is located less than a mile from the largest employer in the City (third-largest employer in SLO County), the Atascadero State Hospital. Two transit stops are located along the project’s Viejo Camino frontage. The project is consistent with SLOCOG’s 2023 RTP action items to support housing DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton development, including mixed use and infill development, near employment centers along transit corridors. The frontages of the site are undeveloped. Along the El Camino Real frontage, there is one northbound travel lane on the project side of the existing median with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Along Viejo Camino, there are two travel lanes within the existing right-of-way with a center turn pocket to access the housing development off La Paloma Court. A bike lane currently exists along a portion of the project site frontage but disappears as the pavement approaches the existing culvert for the waterway. No curb, gutter, or sidewalk exist at this time. There is an existing southbound bus stop along the frontage of the property directly to the north. The properties to the north are undeveloped and do not have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The property at the intersection of El Camino Real and Viejo Camino does have sidewalk and is developed with a commercial use. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project consists of a Development Agreement to allow for the future development of the site with a multi-family project of up to 42 residential units. The existing non-conforming residence will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed project includes access from Viejo Comino aligned with an existing residential street, Bocina Lane. The Development Agreement limits access from El Camino Real to emergency access only, if required by the Fire Department based on future site layout, and requires alignment of the main entry driveway from Viejo Camino with existing residential neighborhood street. A project of 42-units is expected to generate 270 trips per day with 16 AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips. The traffic analysis prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting (September 2024) determined that this volume of traffic would not significantly impact intersection operations. The traffic consultant also conducted a qualitative VMT analysis and determined that the project would have less than significant impacts to VMT with mitigation incorporated for multi-modal connectivity to support access for residents and visitors. TR Impact-1: The proposed project could accommodate up to 42 residential units. The traffic analysis recommends the incorporation of Mitigation Measures related to VMT and multi-modal connections to reduce the impact to less than significant. As discussed in the transportation analysis, access improvements are recommended to support multimodal transportation options to and from the site. With these improvements in place, and given the project’s infill location, mix of surrounding uses, and proximity to transit, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to VMT, the impact required mitigation measures be incorporated. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: TR 1-1: The primary access shall be from Viejo Camino at Bocina Lane or La Paloma Court, as approved by the City Engineer. A left turn lane shall be provided into the project site. Widen street, as needed, to accommodate lane configuration if entrance aligns with La Paloma Court. TR 1-2: A Class II bike lane, curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed along the Viejo Camino project frontage. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton TR1-3: The travel lanes on Viejo Camino east of El Camino Real shall be reduced to accommodate a bike lane or shared lane markings shall be installed within the existing Class II bike lane gap(s), subject to approval of the City Engineer. TR 1-4: Install red curb at the El Camino Real / Viejo Camino intersections and driveways into the existing commercial development for pedestrian safety to and from the site. TR 1-5: Provide a pedestrian pathway connection from the project site frontage to the existing sidewalk east of El Camino Real at the existing commercial development. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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 does not have 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton EXISTING SETTING: The City of Atascadero must account for all impacts to infrastructure and utilities to ensure that existing infrastructure is able to handle current and future demands. Sewer connection and usage fees go toward any necessary improvements or upgrades to the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The AMC and RWQCB sets standards for addressing drainage as well as waste and wastewater disposal from all developments in the City. The existing property is a 4.2-acre, underdeveloped site between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The project site is currently comprised of 2 parcels, one is vacant and the other contains a non-conforming single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. City sewer is available for the project site. There is an existing single-family residence on-site that is currently served by an on-site wastewater system. The site currently contains an ephemeral creek that qualifies as a jurisdictional watercourse. Water flows onto the site from an existing culvert under El Camino Real and meanders east to a culvert under Viejo Camino where the creek joins with Paloma creek and flows into the Salinas River located approximately ¼ mile from the project site. Historically the site was designated with 1.8 acres of wetland. Recent drought conditions and consistent annual livestock grazing have decreased the wetland vegetation and habitat of the site. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) provides water to the City. The company’s service area is shown in Figure 14; the site is within the service area. The AMWC’s Urban Water Management Plan provides regulations based on SLOCOG population projections and historic water use for their service areas. Their projections for water supply and demand, assuming normal conditions through 2040, can be seen in Table 4. These projections go beyond the time period of the most recent General Plan in which the City anticipates build out by the year 2025. Their projections show that they will have sufficient water supplies to meet the demand. Waste Management, Inc. (WM) is the city’s contracted waste management service. Approximately 99% of Atascadero’s solid waste is taken to the Chicago Grade Landfill in Templeton, California (Wallace Group, 2012). CalRecycle monitors and collects data on all permitted landfills in the state of California. According to CalRecycle the Chicago Grade Landfill had a remaining capacity of 6,022,396 cubic yards as of November of 2017 with an operations estimated to cease by 2039. PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant is requesting adoption of a Development Agreement that would allow for and facilitate future construction of the site with a multi-family development. Future development would be limited to a maximum of 42 residential units. The project includes the realignment of a natural ephemeral creek to be integrated into a future project design as a site amenity. The re-aligned water flow path will include vegetation, which is expected to provide filtration and enhance water quality. Construction of new drainage infrastructure is expected to conform to State and local policies and regulations. Construction efforts on the property are expected to abide by waste collection standards stated in the AMC. The additional of up to 42 new residential units and associated site amenities in this area is not expected to impose demands above anticipated projections on the AMWC water resources or the landfill capacity at Chicago Grade Landfill, nor will impacts exceed the capacity of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton USS Impact-1: The facility will be connected to City sewer. The City’s wastewater treatment plant is nearing capacity, however, upgrades and new infrastructure is slated to begin over the next few years. The General Plan anticipates development of this parcel and the existing treatment plant is able to accommodate the anticipated loads generated by the proposed use, thus the impact is insignificant. USS Impact-2: The project will develop a current vacant/underdeveloped site between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino in an urbanized area of the City. This future development will increase the amount of impervious surface on the site, triggering requirements for construction and post-construction stormwater control and management. Per State and local regulations, new projects are required to retain and detain post-construction stormwater on-site, consistent with RWQCB and local standards. Any future project will be required to implement design solutions consistent with stormwater and flood control regulations in place at the time of application, thus the impact is insignificant. USS Impact-3: The facility may create new demand on existing water resources provided by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company is projected to be able to meet water needs for all new uses expected within the City through the year 2040. Since adequate water resources are available, the impact is insignificant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is needed. 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe?: ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Impact a listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as define in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Impact a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California native American Tribe? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton EXISTING SETTING: San Luis Obispo County and the surrounding region is an ancestral home to various Native American tribes. This leads to the occasional discovery of tribal artifacts during development. Local and State regulation recognize the importance of coordinating with local tribes and archeological services to preserve these resources. The City of Atascadero’s General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element Programs 6.2.4-6 require the mitigation and noticing of pertinent parties when archaeological discoveries are made in the city. The AMC lists standards to be adhered to should archeological remains be discovered during the development process which include the cessation of all construction activity until proper local, state, and federal protocol is completed. (AMC 9-4.162) Finally, The California Environmental Quality Act requires the lead agency to notify regional tribes about projects that trigger environmental review. After notifying the regional tribes, they are allowed to require further studies to be administered during any project if they believe that there is potential for cultural artifacts to be found. The existing property is a 4.2-acre, underdeveloped site located between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The project site is currently comprised of 2 parcels, one is vacant and the other contains a non-conforming single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is developed with residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. The site currently contains an ephemeral creek that qualifies as a jurisdictional watercourse. Water flows onto the site from an existing culvert under El Camino Real and meanders east to a culvert under Viejo Camino where the creek joins with Paloma creek and flows into the Salinas River located approximately ¼ mile from the project site. The site is subject to seasonal flooding. There are historic designated wetlands on the site but drought years and grazing activities have minimized riparian vegetation and quality. A known historic cemetery for the rural community of Dove was located approximately 600-feet from the proposed development. The Dove community was in existence the latter portion of the nineteenth century. No other remnants are known to exist within the vicinity. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project consists of a Development Agreement to allow and facilitate the construction of a multi-family residential project with up to 42 units. The approvals would also allow for site grading and creek realignment to create developable pads. It is anticipated that the grading will occur ahead of full site development. Consultation in accordance with AB52 was completed and it was determined that no further study was necessary and that monitoring should occur consistent with the consultant recommendations. A cultural study was prepared by Applied Earthworks, Inc. dated August 2020 and concluded that no tribal resources were identified on-site. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is needed. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton 19. WILDFIRE – If located in or near a state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The proposed project is located between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino within a developed area of the City. The site is located in the City of Atascadero’s Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zone and within the State’s high fire severity zone with minimal surrounding wildland interface. The site contains an ephemeral drainage that is a fork of paloma Creek. The creek enters the site via a culvert under El Camino Real and exits the site via a culvert under Viejo Camino. There are wetlands upstream of the development with the Dove Creek neighborhood. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes establishment of a Development Agreement to allow and facilitate the future construction of up to 42 residential units on-site. The project also includes realignment of the creek channel and remapping of the FEMA floodway and floodplain. A hydrology analysis will be required as part of the construction permit package to ensure adequate water capacity within the realigned creek channel. Because a hydrology analysis is required with construction permits and the property is surrounded by urban uses and relatively flat land with minimal risk of landslide, no mitigation is needed. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is needed. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton 20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The existing property is a 4.2-acre, underdeveloped site located in the Public zoning district between El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. The project site is currently comprised of 2 parcels, one is vacant and the other contains a single-family dwelling. The surrounding area is composed of residential, commercial, public park, and quasi-public uses such as churches and childcare facilities. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes establishment of a Development Agreement to allow and facilitate the future construction of up to 42 residential units on-site. The project also includes realignment of the creek channel and remapping of the FEMA floodway and floodplain. MFS Impact-1: Since the project is expected to comply with policies, regulations and mitigations provided by the City, then there is no significant impact. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No further mitigation is necessary. For further information on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the City’s environmental review process, please visit the City’s website at www.atascadero.org under the Community Development Department or the California Environmental Resources Evaluation System at: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/ for additional information on CEQA. DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton Exhibit A – Initial Study References & Outside Agency Contacts The Community Development Department of the City of Atascadero has contacted various agencies for their comments on the proposed project. With respect to the proposed project, the following outside agencies have been contacted (marked with an ☒) with a notice of intent to adopt a proposed negative / mitigated negative declaration. ☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Company ☒ Native American Heritage Commission ☒ Atascadero Unified School District ☐ San Luis Obispo Council of Governments ☒ Atascadero Waste Alternatives ☒ San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District ☒ AB 52 – Salinan Tribe ☒ San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Board ☒ AB 52 – Northern Chumash Tribe ☒ Regional Water Quality Control Board District 3 ☒ AB 52 – Xolon Salinan Tribe ☒ HEAL SLO – Healthy Communities Workgroup ☐ AB 52 – Other ☒ US Postal Service ☐ California Highway Patrol ☒ Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) ☒ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Region 4) ☒ Southern California Gas Co. (SoCal Gas) ☒ California Department of Transportation (District 5) ☒ San Luis Obispo County Assessor ☒ Pacific Gas & Electric ☐ LAFCO ☐ San Luis Obispo County Planning & Building ☐ Office of Historic Preservation ☐ San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department ☐ Charter Communications ☒ Upper Salians – Las Tablas RCD ☐ CA Housing & Community Development ☐ Central Coast Information Center (CA. Historical Resources Information System) ☐ CA Department of Toxic Substances Control ☐ CA Department of Food & Agriculture ☒ US Army Corp of Engineers ☐ CA Department of Conservation ☒ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ☐ CA Air Resources Board ☐ Other: ☐ Address Management Service ☐ Other: DEV 2024-0075 Development Agreement | Scott Newton The following checked (“☒”) reference materials have been used in the environmental review for the proposed project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The following information is available at the Community Development Department and requested copies of information may be viewed by requesting an appointment with the project planner at (805) 461-5000. ☒ Project File / Application / Exhibits / Studies ☒ Adopted Atascadero Capital Facilities Fee Ordinance ☒ Atascadero General Plan 2025 / Final EIR ☐ Atascadero Inclusionary Housing Policy ☒ Atascadero Municipal Code ☒ SLO APCD Handbook ☐ Atascadero Appearance Review Manual ☒ Regional Transportation Plan ☒ Atascadero Urban Stormwater Management Plan ☒ Flood Hazard Maps ☐ Atascadero Hillside Grading Guidelines ☒ CDFW / USFW Mapping ☐ Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance & Guidelines ☒ CA Natural Species Diversity Data Base ☒ Atascadero Municipal, Building, and Engineering Codes ☒ Archeological Resources Map ☐ Atascadero Downtown Revitalization Plan ☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Company Urban Water Management Plan ☒ Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan ☐ CalEnvironScreen ☒ Atascadero GIS mapping layers ☒ Department of Conservation Fault Zone Application ☒ SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook ☒ Atascadero Fiscal Policy DEV 2020-0076 Mini Storage | Scott Newton Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 44 EXHIBIT B – MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE Newton Development Agreement DEV24-0075 Per Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the following measures also constitutes the mitigation monitoring and/or reporting program that will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The measures will become conditions of approval (COAs) should the project be approved. The City of Atascadero, as the Lead Agency, or other responsible agencies, as specified, are responsible to verify compliance with these COAs. MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING Aesthetics AES-1.1 All site retaining walls shall be constructed or clad in a natural looking material that blends with the surrounding site context. Retaining walls shall be dark colored split face block, rock/stone clad, or similar material and/or color profile. Prior to Permit Issuance Air Quality AQ 2-1 The project shall comply with the following SLO APCD Standard Mitigation Measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG)and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner offroad heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation; • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; • All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Electrify equipment when feasible; During construction MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and, • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. AQ 2-2 The project shall comply with the following SLO APCD Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures for projects with nearby sensitive receptors and/or earthwork exceeding 4-acres to minimize nuisance impacts and to significantly reduce fugitive dust emissions: • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; • Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems, in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. Please note that during drought conditions, water use may be a concern and the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. • All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed; • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance During construction MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114; • “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent Track Out, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices require periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified. • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible; • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD. Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. AQ 2-3 The Project shall comply with the following SLO APCD Diesel Idling Restrictions for Construction Phases to reduce air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; • Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible; and, • Signs that specify the no idling requirements must be posted and enforced at the construction site. • Idling Restrictions for On-road Vehicles. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit consistent with Section 2485 of Title 13, the California Code of Regulations Prior to permit issuance MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING • Idling Restrictions for off-Road Equipment. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind off-road equipment operators of the 5-minute idling limit pursuant to Section 2449(d)(3) of the ARB’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation. Biological Resources BIO 1-1 Pre Construction Surveys for Roosting Bats: Within 30 days prior to removal of existing structures and/or mature trees, a sunset survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if bats are roosting on site. If bats are present, a follow-up acoustic monitoring survey shall be completed to determine, if feasible, which species are present. If roosts of special-status bat species are identified and will be impacted during the proposed project, CDFW will be consulted to determine appropriate measures to be implemented. If it is determined that no special-status bats are present, the project shall proceed under the guidance of a qualified biologist, in a manner that minimizes impacts to individual bats and roosts (e.g., conducting work only during the day or installing one-way exclusions prior to work). Prior to permit issuance BIO 1-2 Pre Construction Surveys for Nesting Birds: If work is planned to occur between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall survey the area for nesting birds within one week prior to activity beginning on site. If nesting birds are located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non-listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work will begin until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Prior to permit issuance BIO 2-1 Protection of Hydrologic Resources: Construction within and immediately adjacent to the drainage shall occur only when conditions are dry. For short-term, temporary stabilization, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs), which shall be implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the channel during construction. Acceptable stabilization methods include the use of weed-free, natural fiber (i.e., nonmonofilament) fiber rolls, jute or coir netting, and/or other industry standards. BMPs shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction period. In Prior to permit issuance/During construction MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING addition, the following general measures shall be implemented during construction: • The limits of disturbance within the existing drainage feature shall be clearly shown on all sites plans and flagged within the drainages prior to project implementation. All construction personnel shall be directed to avoid impacts to the areas immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed development including the existing culvert features located at El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. • All equipment and materials shall be stored out of the streambed at the end of each working day, and secondary containment shall be used to prevent leaks and spills of potential contaminants from entering the stream. • During construction, washing of concrete, paint, or equipment and refueling and maintenance of equipment shall occur only in designated areas a minimum of 50 feet from all drainages and aquatic features. Sandbags and/or sorbent pads shall be available to prevent water and/or spilled fuel from entering drainages. • Construction equipment shall be inspected by the operator on a daily basis to ensure that equipment is in good working order and no fuel or lubricant leaks are present. BIO 2-2 Compensatory Mitigation Plan: A compensatory mitigation plan shall be developed to offset permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas. The exact details and performance criteria of the restoration plan shall be determined during agency coordination with CDFW, RWQCB, and USACE, as necessary. Stabilization and restoration measures may include the installation of BMPs and/or revegetation using native seed mixes and plantings. Prior to project initiation, all applicable agency permits with jurisdiction over the project area (i.e., USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB) should be obtained. Additional mitigation measures required by these agencies would be implemented as necessary. Prior to permit issuance BIO 2-3 Agency Permitting: Prior to issuance of any permits for grading or construction on-site, the applicant shall obtain permits from the following agencies, and any other agencies as necessary: • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Any mitigation measures required by the above listed permits shall be implemented to their fullest extent. Prior to permit issuance MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING BIO 3-1 Creek Channel Naturalization: The realigned creek shall be constructed in a manner which maintains and enhances natural flows and vegetation. A minimum 20-foot setback shall be maintained from the top of creek bank to any structures. Vehicular or pedestrian crossings of the re-aligned creek shall be permitted as part of any future development. Such crossings shall be designed as culvert crossings and shall obtain any required permits from agencies prior to construction. Prior to permit issuance/Permit final BIO 3-2 Wetland Restoration: Should wetland impacts occur, and wetland restoration be required on-site, the wetlands shall be monitored for a period of not less than 5-years. Annual reports from a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the appropriate agency addressing any irrigation modifications or replanting that may be required to ensure successful naturalization of the restored wetland habitat. A contract with a qualified biologist shall be entered into prior to final of the development permit. Post construction BIO 4-1 Special Status Species Plant Surveys: Prior ground disturbing activities and when plants with potential to occur are in a phenological stage conducive to positive identification (i.e., usually during the blooming period for the species), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for special status plant species within the project site. Valid botanical surveys will be considered current for up to five years; if construction has not commenced within five years of the most recent survey, botanical surveys must be repeated. Prior to permit issuance BIO 5-1 Implementation of Best Management Practices: • Prior to ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities, a setback area of 20-feet from the drainage will be fenced with orange construction fencing and signed to prohibit entry. Fencing should be located a minimum of 20 feet from the OHWM and shall be maintained throughout the construction or until regulatory permits to impact the drainage have been acquired. • To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control best management practices (i.e., installation of silt fencing) will be implemented to minimize adverse effects on the drainage. The silt fencing shall be installed prior to commencing construction in adjacent areas and maintained throughout construction or until regulatory permits to impact the drainage have been acquired. • Any substances which could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities will be prevented from entering the drainage. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 50 feet from the drainage and in a During construction MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward the drainage. Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan will be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. • Water Quality and Hydrology WQH 1-1 The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits form the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prior to permit issuance WQH 2-1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) must be issued and received by the City Engineer. Prior to permit issuance WQH 2-2 The project design and construction shall comply with the CLOMR. Prior to a final inspection or Occupancy release, the developer must apply for and be issued a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and a copy filed in the Office of the City Engineer. Prior to C of O Land Use and Planning LUP 1-1 See BIO 3-1 and BIO 5-1 Transportation / Traffic TR 1-1 The primary access shall be from Viejo Camino at Bocina Lane or La Paloma Court, as approved by the City Engineer. A left turn lane shall be provided into the project site. Widen street, as needed, to accommodate lane configuration if entrance aligns with La Paloma Court. Prior to permit issuance TR 1-2 A Class II bike lane, curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be installed along the Viejo Camino project frontage. Prior to C of O TR 1-3 The travel lanes on Viejo Camino east of El Camino Real shall be reduced to accommodate a bike lane or shared lane markings shall be installed within the existing Class II bike lane gap(s), subject to approval of the City Engineer. Prior to C of O TR 1-4 Install red curb at the El Camino Real / Viejo Camino intersections and driveways into the existing commercial development for pedestrian safety to and from the site. Prior to C of O TR 1-5 Provide a pedestrian pathway connection from the project site frontage to the existing sidewalk east of El Camino Real at the existing commercial development. Prior to C of O DEV 2020-0076 Mini Storage | Scott Newton Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 51 Figure 1 – Location Map / General Plan & Zoning L RSF-Y P RMF-24 RMF-10 Figure 2 – Aerial Mapping Existing Single Family Residence Ephemeral drainage Figure 3 – Concept creek realignment diagram S I T ED A T ALOTNO5235ACRESO4M4MI0MXQSS11505ElCAMNORfcAlATASCAWSOCA9J4TllOlNOf189ACRES04J-XMD9ACOSKS11*051CAMNOSfAlATASCACCRO.CA9SC2A*NV I C I N I T YM A PLOT5045-342-0102.35ACGROSS2.26ACNETBUlLDABLE Figure 4 – Farmland Monitoring LegendCa.DeptofConservationCountyBoundariesCaliforniaImportantFarmland:MostRecentMostRecentPrimeFarmlandFarmandofStatewideImportanceUniqueFarmandGrazingLandFarmlandofLocalImportanceFarmilandofLocalPotentiaOtherLandConfinedAnimalAgricultureNonagricultureorNeturalVegetationVacantorDisturbedLandRuraResidentiaLandSemi-agrculturalandRureCommercalLendUrbanandBuilt-UpLandWaterAreaIrrigatedFarmandNonirrigatedFarmland0-4kmL56r853_132-234,568.093Meteiii DEV 2020-0076 Mini Storage | Scott Newton Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 55 Figure 5 – 1,000 Foot Buffer and Surrounding Land Uses Figure 6 – USFWS Wetland Mapper Figure 7 – Blue Line Creek Dove Creek Self -storage Project -Waters and Wetlands Delineation Figure 2:Project Site and Survey Area Map Survey Area N Feet AUnnamedBlueLineDrainage0125250 T £ft ft A -V £i B E Figure 8 – Soils and Slopes Dove Creek Self-storage Project -Waters and Wetlands Delineation Figure 4:Soil Units Map Survey Area Unnamed Blue Line Drainage Santa Lucia-Lop-ez Complex,15-50%Slopes Still Clay Loam,0-2%Slopes Soi Units Feet San Andreas-Arujo Complex,9-15%Slopes 0 125 250 Figure 9 – Flood Zones, Hydrology, & Water Management Zones Subject Site Figure 10 – Soil Erodibility LOW LOW TO MOD MODERATE MOD TO HIGH HIGH Figure 11 – Liquefaction and Landslide Risk Figure 12 – Fire Hazard Figure 13 – FEMA Floodway Subject Parcel Floodway Flood zone AE – area subject to flooding A \ 9166 9164 915 7 91! ato-Ln r • DEV 2020-0076 Mini Storage | Scott Newton Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 64 Figure 14 – Atascadero Mutual Water Company Service Area DEV 2020-0076 Mini Storage | Scott Newton Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 65 Figure 15 – Atascadero Community Wide Emissions by Sector DEV 2020-0076 Mini Storage | Scott Newton Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 66 Table 1 – San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Attainment Status San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status California Standards *'Federal Standards'* Pollutant Averaging lime Attainment Status Attainment StatusConcentration Concentration Non-Attainment Eastern SLQ County -Attainment Western SLO County”" 1 Hour 0.09 ppm {iao pg^m3) Ozone (OjJ Non-Attainment 0.070 ppm (137 pg.!m 3Frtrt*S Houir 0.070 ppm (137 pg'm1) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 50 pgAn1 150 pg'm3 Unclassified "/ AttainmentNon-AttainmentAnnual AnthmeUc Mean 20 pgifn2. 35 pg/m324HourNoStateStandardFineParticulate Matter |PM2.5 ) Unclassified'/ AttainmentAttainmentAnnual AnthmeUc Mean 12 pgfn1 12.0 pg'm3 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)0 Hour 9.0 ppm {10 mg'm3) Carbon Monoxide {0}Unclassified "Attainment20ppm(23 mg/m3}1 Hon 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Annual AnthmeUc Mean 0.053 ppm (100 pg/m3)0.030 ppm (57 pg/m.3)Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz )Unclassified'Attainment 1 Hour 0.16 ppm {550 pg/m.3)100 ppb (196 mg /m3) Annual AnthmeUc Mean 0.030 ppm (60 pg'm1) 24 Hour 0.04 ppm {105 pg/m.3)0.14 ppm (365 pg'm2 )Sulfur DioxideESCb)Unclassified "Attainment 0.5 ppm {1-300 pg/m3)**3 Houir 1 Hour 0.25 ppm {655 pgi'm3)75 ppb {196 mg/m*) 50 Day Average 1.5 pg'm1 No Attainment I informal HD nCalendarQuarter1.5 pg/mr1Lead1Attainment Rolling 5-Month Average "0.1S pghi2 EnnDBn EMfltten:of &.Z3 per hlbmclcr -klslbiity «1wn irdH -or more iD .DT -30 miet or rryofb for Lake Tahoe}due»partiEHtt when rdav-o humidity Is I U i a n 70 percent .Medvxl :&«a Aflefiuaawi and Transmittance {trough Ftitr Tacc Visibility Reducing Particles 6 Hour Attainment!No Federal Sulfates 24 Hour 25 pgfn2.Attainment StandardsHydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.05 ppm (42 pgiVn1)Attainment No Attainment InformationVinylChloride*24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 pgi'm1) +ItndWmi &ed i EPAJ Federal dicta irianlc:Any area iliac caoooi be eddied o®ihe 5J >u of available inium.iiiun u meeting or IUM lueeiiny die national primary or [Secondary Siurdard ^un Luis Ubi >po Coumy JLI>b«eo deitgiuicd nen-arnuuncni era of the -1211.4 Jcr«-Longitude line,in xrca±ixf SLCJ Coumy that are *ouih -of Iniiudc 15.45 degrees,and cost af IIIL;-1.20.1 decree Longiiudc lint,in areat of £LU Coumy thai arc nurihof lain tide *3 AS decrees .Map of ruHi -aiuiinnHan area a ai ailable iqxn request friMti iiw APCDL ViLLie.mi.ni |UPA Federal Jrfiiniiuni:Any area ihai meets die naao&aL priniuy or sceoataiary aiubieni air quality itaruiard fur ihai polluuni.ftA dellniiio®K Hi aie Federal PM2.5 ixoodary Standard,id mug-in" >on -\tuln niL-ni |EP A Federil -dediruiiun|:Any area ihai does XMH mccL or eoniribuied io an area that does IUN meet 'he nauoruL priiuaiy or secondary acdbieiu ak quality diandard iur due poll mom.|CA definition):Stale diandard was exceeded at leaii once during a three year period.**Tlw liMffl NAAJQS tor &hr a nine id U.l'j if -ppm The III i5 K AAQS 1'ur shr ozone is 0.070 ppm.The-anaLnnaeru siacus in this labk relate*la ihe ItHlK and III i 5 SA Ays.SLU1 County had bets designated.lUMi-afliauuneni aI dbe 2015 NAA.QS.SAAQS LS Sjiioeiil Arnhem Air Quality Stamlanh secondary ambient air quality standard for LMI peHuiaan. ****For naxe infoaniinon on siiandardd vi«:liln>ww.njfc.cii.Bav.research.aa<n aju >2 :*11 diauiird WJ >IUX exceeded during a three year period .a*** Rev Lied January 20,201 H(I -IHlKI.-ft II Table 2 – 2030 Operational Year Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis Size of Urban Project Expected To Exceed A.PCD GHG Numerical Threshold 'loperjLiona I & construction) Size of Urban Project Expected Eo Exceed APCD Ozone Precu rww La nd Use Unit of Measure 141SignificanceThreshold 2.5 lbs/Day RQG f hox650CQ2e[MlT /yea r| COMMERCIAL 14 12Bank|with Drive-Thftj) General Office Ru ikli rig 42 149 Government |Civi£Center )21 65 Government Qllifce Building 15 14 12 99HospitalI.DODSFMedicalOfficeBuilding 19 60 Qlfice Park 19 141 Pharmacy /DrugStOre w /O Drive Thru 15 15 14 19Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive Thru Research &Deveksprtvent 55 1S 2 EDUCATIONAL |5 ! 24 41Dav-Care Center einentdiy School 42 105 High School 37 107I.DODSFjuniorHighSchool 44 112 14 19Library Place of Worship 45 69 junior College {2yrj 634 16B15TUDENT5UniverSrly/College |4yr )942 1001 INDUSTRIAL General Heavy industry 90 421 General Light Industry 52 172 industrial Park 46 1S9 69 262Manufacturing Mini Storage I.DODSF 151 447 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 99 451 99 451RefrigeratedWarehouse-Rail Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 136 454 Unrefrigeiated Warehouse-Ral 136 454 RECREATIONAL Fast Food Restaurant w/0 Drive TTihj 1.7 42 Fast Food Restaurant wiLh Drive Thru 9.1 5.1 Health Club 24 79 High Turnover i;5it Down Restaurantl 7.9 19I.DODSFMovieTheater[No Matinee)11 27 Quality Restaurant 10 19 Racquet Clu b 40 109 Recreational Swimnrhng Pool 27 71 2.5 12Arena City Pai k ACRES 22 95 Goll Course 115 956 Hotel 51 177RQOM5491S2Motel RESIDENTIAL ftpflrEfraerft High P.c,e 9fi 247 ftpflrEfraerft Low Ri&a 69 192 ftpflrEfraerfl Low Ri&a (Rural]47 147 71 2024fldrtmgrrLMidR&fr Cdrtdft/Ttiwnhduie General 71 216 GjndG/Tdwnhduie Gerttral |Rurd l|SO 169 Q3rtda/Tawnhdu:te High Ri WELLING UNIT 97 270 Qjngre^L^Carc/AiSiSLed Living 124 346 Mobile hdme Park 78 226 Mobile Home Park |Rui dl I 56 1S1 RaEirenflfrnE Communi Iv 139 369 Sirjglfe-Fflrtiily Hduiing 43 126 3G 99Sirjglfe-Fflrtiily Hauling |Rural) RETAIL AuLACiie Cellar 41 114 Cdrtve-nianfca Mdrbei!{24 hDui j Convenience Marked wiEhGai Punfipi 3.1 4.6 3.1 3 J0- Dii&GunE Club 21 49 ElfrflrOrtiC SopfrfSEdrd 29 7Q Fffre 5Eandirtg,Di^durtE 5Edrd 17 381,000 SF 18 42Fifrd5rjmdinjj.Pi^L-LHjrtt SuperlEdre Handwdre^Pdi nE Sidra 16 14 Hdrtie IrtipfdvErTfiertt Suparlt &ra lagidrial Shopping C&rtEdr 25 S3 21 50 Strip Mall 24 59 SupernfiiikfrL 10 18 Giidlir1fr/5ei vitfr StflEiGrt17'PUMPS 1.Screening levels in this table were created using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 with default San Luis Obispo County urban settings;some rural setting results are also included and are denoted by parentheses.If the project is not represented well by an urban setting,(e.g.,urban fringe development where urban trip lengths are not representative),then the project impacts need to be specifically evaluated in CalEEMod using project specific information.The modeling results,substantiated assumptions,and CalEEMod files need to be presented to SLO County APCD for review and approval. 2.This screening table is based on daily ozone precursor and annual GHG emissions,and is not comprehensive.This table is not applicable for projects that involve heavy-duty diesel activity and /or fugitive dust emissions.For any projects that have sizes greater than the screening criteria values in this table,the SLO County APCD recommends using the current CalEEMod model (CalEEMod.com)and its built-in mitigation measures to complete a more refined air quality and GHG impact analysis for the project.Because this table tiers off an earlier CalEEMod model, SLO County APCD recognizes that its screening criteria values are conservative;i.e.,if the project size is below the applicable screening criteria values,SLO County APCD accepts that the project daily ozone precursor and annual GHG emission impacts are less than significant.If the project includes mixed land use types,the APCD recommends screening the project using the SLO County APCD mixed -use screening tool that tiers off of this screening table. 3.For ozone precursor evaluations,SLO County APCD considers CalEEMod winter scenario simulations worst case because winter emissions are typically higher than its summer emissions. 4.Use of this table does not preclude lead agencies from complying with Section 15064.4 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")Guidelines which requires that "a lead agency should make a good-faith effort...to describe,calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project."If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable,notwithstanding compliance with the screening levels in this table,a refined emissions quantification and analysis should be conducted. 5.All projects involving the purchase of a school site,or construction of a new elementary or secondary school,must be referred to SLO County APCD for review and comment.(Pub. Resources Code Section 21151.8,Subd.(a)(2)). 6.CalEEMod does not have mini-storage as a land -use category,however the ITE Trip Generation Manual includes trip rates for this category under Code 151.SLO County APCD used the CalEEMod Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail land-use category as a surrogate for mini -storage,changing the trip rates to those for mini-storage,and to be conservative,made all trip types Primary Trips. 7.For the Gas Station land use categories,please contact APCD Planning staff to help determine the best method for quantifying values with the CalEEMod tool. Table 3 – Potential Ground Shaking sources Fault Anticipated Acceleration Distance*Maximum Earthquake Maximum Probable Earthquake(miles )Rdnge (g) Rinconada and Jolon 2 7.5 7.0 0.4-0.6 Black Mountain 3 7.5 5.75 0.1-0.5 La Panza 9 7.5 Unknown,but assumes 5 0.1-04 Los Osos 14 7 Unknown,but assumes 5 0.1-0.2 Hosgri 22 6.5-7.5 0.1-0.27.5 San Andreas 27 8.25 8 0.1-0.2 San Simeon 35 unknown 6.5 unknown *from El Camino Real/Traffic Way Table 4 – Atascadero Mutual Water Company Supply/Demand Projection Table 3-1Retail:Population -Current and Protected Population Served 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 29.370 32,372 33,521 34 ,711 35,943 37 r 219 NOTES:2015 poaulat'on are na &*c on DWR.aopL adon:ool and future nopLladon project oni ape as -sec on AMjjjC Demand Study Attachment 1: Biologist Report and Addenda This page intentionally left blank 1 January 28, 2019 Mr. Scott Newton Arroyo Grande, California Sent via email: scott@sole2soulsports.com RE: Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project, 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino, Atascadero, California (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) Dear Mr. Newton, Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) completed a biological resources assessment of the property located at 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino (APN 045- 342-009 and 045-342-010) in the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California (see Attachment A – Figure 1: Site Location and Overview Map). The biological assessment was completed in support of a permit application for a proposed development project which includes the construction of approximately 71,000 square feet of new buildings, including self - storage units and a business operations office building with attached, two -story residential dwelling. An existing, single-family residence located on the western edge of the property will be demolished as part of the proposed project. Current development plans also include re- alignment of an ephemeral drainage that currently flows northeast across the site, in order to convey storm water flows around the proposed development . Approximately 0.77 acre of the total 4.15-acre lot has been designated as a wetland open space preservation area that will be planted with a mix of native species appropriate for the site. This area will receive storm water run-off from the development and any storm water overflow from the re-aligned drainage feature, and will also serve as mitigation for proposed impacts to the existing drainage. The purpose of the biological resources assessment completed by Terra Verde is to identify sensitive biological resources that occur, or have potential to occur, within the proposed project site. A sensitive resource is defined here as one that is of management concern to local, county, state, and/or federal resource agencies. The existing site conditions, survey methods, and results of the assessment are described in detail below, as well as r ecommended avoidance and minimization measures, which are intended to reduce potential impacts to sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible. As necessary, this report may be used to support the environmental review and regulatory agency permitting process. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 2 Existing Conditions The project site is located within the Atascadero U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, on the eastern edge of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. It is situated within the Upper Salinas Watershed and the Upper Salinas River Valley, approximately 0.85 mile west of the Salinas River. Topography at the site is flat to gently sloping with elevations ranging from approximately 271 to 280 meters (890 to 920 feet). An unnamed USGS blue line drainage feature flows northeast across the site. The project site is largely undeveloped, with one single-family residence located along the western edge of the project site, which is accessed from Viejo Camino. A review of historical aerial imagery indicates that mowing or other vegetation management activities have been occurring intermittently at this site since at least 2007 (Google Earth, 1989-2017). Further, a herd of goats has been grazed on the property for the past several years. Methodology Prior to conducting field surveys of the subject property, Terra Verde staff reviewed the following resources: • Aerial photographs (Google Earth, 1994-2017) and preliminary site plans • USGS Atascadero 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map • Online Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California, (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS, 2018]) • Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH) online database of plant collections (CCH, 2018) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) CNDDB list of state and federally listed special-status species documented within the Atascadero 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles (Templeton, Creston, Santa Margarita, Lopez Mountain, San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay South, Morro Bay North and York Mountain) (CDFW, 2018) • CNDDB map of special-status species that have been documented within a 2-mile radius of the project site (CDFW, 2018) (see Attachment A – Figure 2: 2-mile CNDDB and Critical Habitat Map) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants for the Atascadero 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles (CNPS, 2018) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS, 2018a) • USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS, 2018b) A list of regionally-occurring, special-status species was compiled based on records reported in the scientific database queries. This species list was utilized to focus the field survey efforts as well as to determine appropriate survey periods for special -status botanical species that have the potential to occur on site. Following the literature review and desktop analysis, Terra Verde completed field surveys of the site, which focused on the identification of sensitive habitats and special-status species, as well as a jurisdictional determination and formal wetland delineation T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 3 of hydrologic features. Surveys were completed on May 17 and July 10, 2018, and included the entire approximately four-acre parcel, a 100-foot buffer on all sides where access was feasible, and a visual scan of the surrounding landscape. During each survey, all detected plant and wildlife species and their sign (e.g., tracks, scat, vocalizations, etc.) were documented (see Attachment B – Wildlife and Botanical Species Observed). Botanical species identifications and taxonomic nomenclature followed The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition (Baldwin et al., 2012), as well as taxonomic updates provided in the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project, 2018). The second edition of A Manual of California Vegetation (MCV; Sawyer et al., 2009) was referenced for vegetation community classification; however, no natural vegetation communities occur on site. The habitat requirements for each regionally-occurring, special-status species were analyzed and compared to the type and quality of habitats observed on site during the field surveys. The potential for many species to occur within the project site was eliminated due to a lack of suitable habitat, elevation, appropriate soils/substrate, and/or known distribution of the species within the project site. Special-status species for which suitable habitat was identified on site are discussed below. Results Hydrologic Resources As noted previously, an ephemeral, USGS blue line drainage flows northeast across the survey area. This drainage enters the subject property via a culvert located under El Camino Real, conveying storm flows and surface runoff from the adjacent areas. The drainage exits the subject property via a second culvert located under Viejo Camino at the northeastern corner of the property, and converges with Paloma Creek approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site. Paloma Creek flows directly into the Salinas River and eventually to the traditionally navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean. No flowing or standing water was present at the time of the surveys. However, a clearly-defined channel and evidence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) were observed within the ephemeral drainage. Based on the results of the jurisdictional determination completed by Terra Verde, it is assumed that this drainage would be considered waters of the state under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). In addition, a historical wetland feature mapped in the USFWS NWI online database covers approximately 1.80 acres of the proposed project site (USFWS, 2018a). This area is classified as a freshwater emergent wetland, dominated by persistent emergent vegetation, with temporary flooding during the growing season (USFWS, 2018a). As such, a formal wetland delineation was completed to document the current extent of federal and/or state wetlands on the site, the results of which are summarized in a separate report (Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report, T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 4 Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project; Terra Verde, 2019). Although the channel bottom supports a dominance of wetland-indicator (i.e., hydrophytic) plant species throughout much of its length, no hydric soils were observed on site. Therefore, no federal wetlands (i.e., three - parameter wetlands defined by presence of hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and dominance of hydrophytic vegetation) were documented within the survey area. It is important to note that, though generally accurate, the spatial data housed in the NWI is acquired through analysis of high-altitude imagery and therefore, may not accurately reflect current conditions on the ground (USFWS, 2018a). Although historical site conditions may have supported federal wetlands, current conditions do not support a sufficient hydroperiod to create or sustain hydric soils. Thus, the freshwater emergent wetland feature previously mapped within the proposed project site may have transitioned to more xeric conditions as a result of current and past land uses, as well as changes in the local climate and site hydrology. Vegetation Communities Vegetation communities and land cover types were assessed and classified based on vegetation composition, structure, and density, with consideration of known land management practices. The survey area consists primarily of ruderal, herbaceous vegetation that is periodically mowed and regularly grazed by goats. A single-family residence, with associated driveway and ornamental landscaping, occupy approximately 0.30 acre of the project site and survey area (see Attachment C – Representative Site Photographs). A total of 44 vascular plant species were identified within the survey area, of which 33 (75 percent) are non-native and 20 (45 percent) are listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC, 2018), with native species observed only at very low cover. The number and abundance of non-native taxa substantially exceeds that of native taxa, and many of the native species documented are known to be disturbance tolerant (e.g., western ragweed [Ambrosia psilostachya], common fiddleneck [Amsinckia intermedia], common lippia [Phyla nodiflora], etc.), reflecting the high level of disturbance and extremely ruderal nature of vegetation on site. None of the land cover types observed on site correspond to a natural vegetation community as defined in the MCV classification system. The land cover types observed on site are briefly described below, and illustrated in Figure 3 (Vegetation Communities Map) in Attachment A. Ruderal Herbaceous (3.85 acres) A vast majority of the site is characterized by ruderal herbaceous vegetation dominated by wall barley (Hordeum murinum), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum), and heart-podded hoary cress (Lepidium draba), with dense patches of yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). The channel bottom of the ephemeral, blue line drainage supports a distinct assemblage of species dominated by common lippia, with Mediterranean barley present at high cover in occasional patches. The composition of T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 5 ruderal herbaceous vegetation observed is typical of grazed, agricultural, and urban sites and may provide limited foraging habitat for birds, small mammals, and other wildlife. Developed/Ornamental (0.30 acre) This land cover type is associated with the existing residence and associated driveway. Ornamental trees, including pine (Pinus sp.), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) border the home. Anthropogenic/Developed areas observed on site may provide suitable habitat for nesting birds, roosting bats, and limited wildlife foraging and cover. Special-status Botanical Species Based on a review of the range and habitat requirements for regionally-occurring special-status species, it was determined that seven special-status botanical species have the potential to occur within the proposed development area. Surveys were timed to occur during the typical blooming and/or fruiting period for these species, which are listed below with special-status rankings: • Cambria morning-glory (Calystegia subacaulis subsp. episcopalis), California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 4.2 • San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora subsp. obispoensis), CRPR 1B.2 • Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii), CRPR 1B.1 • Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), CRPR 4.2 • San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana), CRPR 1B.2 • Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), federal threatened / CRPR 1B.1 • Shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians), CRPR 1B.2 Although low suitability habitat is present for these species on the project site, none were identified during appropriately-timed surveys and, as such, none are expected to occur within the proposed development area. Special-status Wildlife Species Based on a review of the range and habitat requirements for regionally-occurring species, it was determined that four special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the proposed development area. These wildlife species and their special-status rankings include: • Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), California Species of Special Concern (CSC) • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), CSC • Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), CSC • Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), CSC In addition to these special-status wildlife species, suitable habitat for resident and migratory nesting birds is present on site. Although no nesting birds or roosting bats were detected during T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 6 the field surveys, they may utilize the site for nesting purposes on an annual basis and be present prior to the start of construction. Impact Assessment and Recommended Avoidance and Minimization Measures The following section includes a summary of potential impacts to sensitive resources as a result of the proposed development. Recommended avoidance and minimization measures (AMMs) are provided, which are intended to reduce or mitigate expected impacts to sensitive biological resources including the existing blue line drainage feature . Hydrologic Resources Current development plans include the re-alignment and partial channelization of the blue line drainage through a box culvert, in order to direct and slow storm water flows around the proposed development and reduce flood potential on the site. In addition, sections of the re - aligned channel will be lined with concrete and/or riprap. This will result in the permanent loss of approximately 0.14 acre of ephemeral drainage channel. The proposed wetland open space area included as part of the proposed development will offset the permanent losses. In addition, the following protection measures should be implemented to protect aquatic resources on site during and following construction. AMM 1: Protection of Hydrologic Resources Construction within and immediately adjacent to the drainage shall occur only when conditions are dry. For short-term, temporary stabilization, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs), which shall be implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the channel during construction. Acceptable stabilization methods include the use of weed-free, natural fiber (i.e., non- monofilament) fiber rolls, jute or coir netting, and/or other industry standards. BMPs shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction period. In addition, the following general measures shall be implemented during construction: • The limits of disturbance within the existing drainage feature shall be clearly shown on all sites plans and flagged within the drainages prior to project implementation. All construction personnel shall be directed to avoid impacts to the areas immediately upstream and downstream of the proposed development including the existing culvert features located at El Camino Real and Viejo Camino. • All equipment and materials shall be stored out of the streambed at the end of each working day, and secondary containment shall be used to prevent leaks and spills of potential contaminants from entering the stream. • During construction, washing of concrete, paint, or equipment and refueling and maintenance of equipment shall occur only in designated areas a minimum of 50 feet from all drainages and aquatic features. Sandbags and/or sorbent pads shall be available to prevent water and/or spilled fuel from entering drainages. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 7 • Construction equipment shall be inspected by the operator on a daily basis to ensure that equipment is in good working order and no fuel or lubricant leaks are present. AMM 2: Compensatory Mitigation Plan A compensatory mitigation plan shall be developed to offset permanent impacts to jurisdictional areas. The exact details and performance criteria of the restoration plan shall be determined during agency coordination with CDFW, RWQCB, and the Corps, as necessary. Stabilization and restoration measures may include the installation of BMPs and/or revegetation using native seed mixes and plantings. Prior to project initiation, all applicable agency permits with jurisdiction over the project area (i.e., Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB) should be obtained. Additional mitigation measures required by these agencies would be implemented as necessary. Special-status Botanical Species No special-status botanical species were documented on site during appropriately-timed spring and summer surveys. As such, it is assumed that no special-status botanical species currently exist on site, and no impacts to special-status plant populations will occur as a result of the proposed development. Special-status Wildlife Species Demolition of the existing residence and any planned removal of ornamental trees may result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds if construction occurs during the typical avian nesting period (generally February 01 through August 31), as well as roosting bats. Further, the grassland habitat areas on site, although disturbed, may provide suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting species. Impacts may occur due to habitat loss (e.g., removal of trees) or construction-related disturbances that may deter roosting or nesting, or cause nests to fail. Increased short- and long-term anthropogenic activity including increased light pollution may also result in nest failures or deterring nesting and roosting behavior. AMM 3: Pre-construction Surveys for Roosting Bats Within 30 days prior to removal of existing structures and/or mature trees, a sunset survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if bats are roosting on site. If bats are present, a follow-up acoustic monitoring survey shall be completed to determine, if feasible, which species are present. If roosts of special-status bat species are identified and will be impacted during the proposed project, CDFW will be consulted to determine appropriate measures to be implemented. If it is determined that no special-status bats are present, the project shall proceed under the guidance of a qualified biologist, in a manner that minimizes impacts to individual bats and roosts (e.g., conducting work only during the day or installing one-way exclusions prior to work). AMM 4: Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds If work is planned to occur between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall survey the area for nesting birds within one week prior to activity beginning on site. If T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 8 nesting birds are located on or near the proposed project site, they shal l be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non -disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non -listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work will begin until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Conclusion No special-status species were observed during field surveys. Although low suitability habitat is present on site for seven regionally-occurring special-status species, none were observed during appropriately-timed surveys in May and July. As such, none are expected to occur. In addition, it was determined that four special-status wildlife species, as well as nesting birds, may utilize existing structures and trees/grassland at the site. Further, proposed impacts to an ephemeral blue line drainage will result in the permanent loss of jurisdictional areas and associated habitat. An approximately 0.77-acre wetland and open space preservation area has been incorporated into the site development plants, which will offset these permanent losses. Based on the current proposed preliminary designs, it is expected that implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will avoid and/or minimize imp acts to potentially occurring sensitive biological resources to a less than significant level. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at knelson@terraverdeweb.com or (702) 596-5038. Sincerely, Kristen Nelson Botanist Attachments: A – Figures Figure 1: Site Location and Overview Map Figure 2: 2-mile CNDDB and Critical Habitat Map Figure 3: Vegetation Communities Map B – Wildlife and Botanical Species Observed C – Representative Site Photographs T E R R A *V E R D E Environmental Consulting 9 References Baldwin, Bruce G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 2012. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. California Natural Diversity Database: RareFind 5. Accessible online with subscription at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed May - August 2018. California Invasive Plant Council. 2018. The Cal-IPC Inventory. Available online at: http://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/. Accessed August 2018. California Native Plant Society. 2018. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Sacramento, California. Available Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed May - August 2018. Google Earth Pro V 7.1.8.3036 (June 2017). 1994-2017. Atascadero, California. 35.453427, - 120.637521. DigitalGlobe. Accessed May - September 2018. Jepson Flora Project. 2018. Jepson eFlora. Regents of the University of California. Available online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed May - August 2018. Natural Resources Conservation Service/U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2018. Available Online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 2018. Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press: Sacramento, California. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018a. National Wetland Inventory Mapper. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed June 2018. --------. 2018b. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Portal. Available online at: http://crithab.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed July 2018. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 10 This page intentionally left blank. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting ATTACHMENT A – Figures Figure 1: Site Location and Overview Map Figure 2: 2-mile CNDDB and Critical Habitat Map Figure 3: Vegetation Communities Map T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting This page intentionally left blank. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting El C a m in o R eal Viejo Camino Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community ^_Project Location Survey Area Unnamed Blue Line D rainage Dove Creek Self-storage Develo pment ProjectFigure 1: Site Location and Overview Map 26 Sep 201 8 ¯ ^_ San Luis Obispo County Monterey County Sources: Esri, HERE,DeLorme, Intermap,increment P Corp., GEBCO,USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,METI, Esri China (Hong 0 250 500125Feet Stream data: County of San Luis Obispo, 2006; accessed February 2014 ^_ Salinas River Straight-awned Spineflower Santa Margarita Manzanita Mesa Horkelia Crotch Bumble Bee Eastwood's Larkspur Santa Margarita Manzanita Santa Margarita Manzanita Santa Margarita Manzanita Atascadero June Beetle Yellow-flowered Eriastrum Northern California Legless Lizard Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community, Content may not reflect N ational Geographic's current mappolicy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC,USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. Dove Creek Self-storage Develo pment ProjectFigure 2: 2-m ile C ND DB and Critical Habitat Map 0 10.5 Miles 27 Sep 201 8 ¯^_Project Location 2-mil e Buffer Special-status Wildlife Occurrence Special -status Plant Occurrence Steelhead Cr itical Habitat V %T *B£3l**/1>*V fsiu.ESW v*S?.4PWQFJH>•xi&r /j <<}»-k’’ J=*I tfv*-":***1*"**/R 4*rT4%4 +»•;mma®*war,J r .a sinf-s mm)T-2 1>,i&v^Tti A.WA*W *•k 4 •^- *MMLM<SMI - I V*-* nou8*.**4>4*4 4 *4«r <rm *fi.iffHfc *2 ;<21/*»/,*MVlVdSC;r, fejgSf M ** m«74 T «y'i?S*M .JWMZ*MMELT?*;-<,>:Source:Earl,DigRalGlobe,GeoEye,Eathstar Geographies,CNES/Alibus DS, USDA,USGS,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrid,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community,Content may not reflect National Geographic^current map polcy.Sources:National Geographic,Esri,DeLorme,HERE,UNEP-WCMC,•i USGS,NASA,ESA,METI,NRCAN,GEBCO,NOAA,Increment P Corp> El C a m in o R eal Viejo Camino Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community 27 Sep 2018 Survey Ar ea Developed/Ornam ental Ruderal Herbaceous Unnamed Blue Line Drainage Stream data: County of San Luis Obispo, 2006; accessedFebruary 2014; Wetland data: U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceNational Wetlands Inventory, 2017; accessed October 2014. Dove Creek Self-storage Development ProjectFigure 3: Vegetation Communit ies Map ¯0 250 500125Feet This page intentionally left blank. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting ATTACHMENT B – Wildlife and Botanical Species Observed Table A.1. List of Botanical Species Family Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status1 Origin Apiaceae, Carrot Family Conium maculatum Poison hemlock FACW Naturalized Arecaceae, Palm Family Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm FACW Naturalized (Ornamental) Asteraceae, Sunflower Family Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed -- Native Anthemis cotula Mayweed -- Naturalized Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s purse -- Naturalized Carduus pycnocephalus subsp. pycnocephalus Italian thistle -- Naturalized Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle -- Naturalized Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved horseweed -- Naturalized Silybum marianum Milk thistle -- Naturalized Sonchus asper subsp. asper Prickly sow thistle FAC Naturalized Boraginaceae, Borage Family Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck -- Native Amsinckia menziesii Small-flowered fiddleneck -- Native Plagiobothrys canescens Valley popcornflower -- Native Brassicaceae, Brassica nigra Black mustard -- Naturalized Table A.2. List of Wildlife Species Order Scientific Name Common Name Origin/Listing Status* Avifauna Cathartes aura Turkey vulture -- Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow -- Haemorhous mexicanus House finch -- Melozone crissalis California towhee -- Passer domesticus House sparrow Non-native Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe -- Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch -- Mammals Thomomys bottae Botta’s pocket gopher -- Reptiles Sceloporus occidentalis Coast range fence lizard -- T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Table A.1. List of Botanical Species Family Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status1 Origin Mustard Family Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd’s purse -- Naturalized Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean hoary mustard -- Naturalized Lepidium draba Heart-podded hoary cress -- Naturalized Convolvulaceae, Morning-glory Family Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed -- Naturalized Cupressaceae, Cypress Family Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood -- Native (Ornamental) Fabaceae, Legume Family Acmispon americanus var. americanus American bird’s foot trefoil -- Native Lotus corniculatus Bird’s-foot trefoil FAC Naturalized Medicago polymorpha California burclover -- Naturalized Vicia villosa Hairy vetch -- Naturalized Geraniaceae, Geranium Family Erodium botrys Big heron bill -- Naturalized Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree -- Naturalized Erodium moschatum Greenstem filaree -- Naturalized Geranium molle Crane’s bill geranium -- Naturalized Juncaceae, Rush Family Juncus cf patens Spreading rush FACW Native Lamiaceae, Mint Family Marrubium vulgare White horehound -- Naturalized Myrsinaceae, Myrsine Family Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel FAC Naturalized Papaveraceae, Poppy Family Eschscholzia californica California poppy -- Native Poaceae, Grass Family Avena barbata Slender wild oat -- Naturalized Bromus catharticus Rescue Grass -- Naturalized Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass -- Naturalized Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess -- Naturalized Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens Red brome -- Naturalized Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass -- Naturalized Elymus triticoides Beardless wild rye FAC Native T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Table A.1. List of Botanical Species Family Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status1 Origin Festuca perennis Rye grass FAC Naturalized Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley FAC Naturalized Hordeum murinum Wall barley -- Naturalized Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass -- Naturalized Polygonaceae, Buckwheat Family Rumex crispus Curly dock FAC Naturalized Rubiaceae, Madder Family Galium aparine Goose grass -- Native Rubiaceae, Madder Family Galium aparine Goose grass -- Native Salicaceae, Willow Family Salix laevigata Red willow FACW Native Verbenaceae, Vervain Family Phyla nodiflora Common lippia FACW Native 1Listing Status: Indicates listing status for taxa that are included on the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) for the Arid West region (USFWS, 2016), as well as taxa that are considered noxious/invasive weeds in California. No special-status species were documented. Taxa that are considered wetland-indicators are included on the NWPL and assigned one of the following wetland indicator statuses: • Obligate (OBL): plants that almost always occur in wetlands. • Facultative Wetland (FACW): plants that usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands. • Facultative (FAC): plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. 2cf (=conforms to): indicates provisional species determination based on the observed pheno-phase, but in the absence of diagnostic features (e.g., desiccated or undeveloped reproductive structures). T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting ATTACHMENT C - Representative Site Photographs T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Photo 1. View west showing the narrow channel of the blue line drainage (May 17, 2018). Photo 2. View north toward private residence and landscape trees present on western site boundary (May 10, 2017). T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Photo 3. View west of the culvert under Viejo Camino, with a debris rack just downstream of the culvert outlet (May 17, 2018). Photo 4. View east of the downstream end of the drainage where it flows under Viejo Camino (May 17, 2018). T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA terraverdeweb.com December 08, 2020 Mr. Scott Newton Arroyo Grande, California Sent via email: scott@manyfigs.com RE: Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project, 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino, Atascadero, California (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) Dear Mr. Newton, Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) completed a biological resources assessment in 2018 for the property located at 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) in the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County (refer to Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project, Terra Verde 2019a). In addition, a formal delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands was completed (refer to Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report for Dove Creek Self- Storage Development Project, Terra Verde 2019b). Since these initial reports were prepared, site development plans have been modified to address design concerns raised by the City of Atascadero (City). The updated site development plans (dated March 23, 2020) include the following key modifications: • Lot consolidation (combine two lots into one) • Removal of the biofiltration basin and associated vegetated wetland area • Reduced building footprint This memorandum is being prepared as an addendum to the biological resources assessment dated January 28, 2019 (Terra Verde 2019) and is intended to address the information request from the City to provide an updated biological resources assessment report. In particular, the following includes an evaluation of any change in the potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources as a result of modifications made to the site development plans. This assessment is based on a review of the modified site plans (dated March 23, 2020) in comparison to the original site plans, as well as data collected in support of the biological resources assessment and wetland delineation reports prepared in 2019. No additional field surveys were completed. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 2 Summary of Potential Impacts The biological resources assessment and wetland delineation reports prepared by Terra Verde in January 2019 identified one blue line drainage that would be impacted by the proposed project, as well as potential for roosting bats and nesting birds to occur on site and be impacted by project construction. Hydrologic Resources The original site development plans included filling and re -aligning the entire length of the blue line drainage that occurs on the subject property, totaling 581 linear feet and 0.14 acre. The modified site plans and reduced building footprint allow for a more natural flow line of the re- aligned drainage, particularly near the outlet of the culvert under El Camino Real. The more natural alignment of the drainage may reduce the amount of riprap and concrete armoring that is necessary, but details pertaining to the amount of armoring and channelization are not yet finalized. Special-status Wildlife Species The modified site plans would not increase or decrease the potential for impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats. In particular, demolition of the existing residence and any planned removal of ornamental trees may result in direct or indirect impacts to roosting bats, as well as nesting birds if construction occurs during the typical avian nesting period (generally February 01 through August 31). Conclusion The overall amount of realignment and permanent fill within the existing blue line drainage may be reduced compared to the original design, which may reduce the total area required for compensatory mitigation. However, since engineering drawings have not been finalized for the modified site plans, the total length and area of reduced channel impacts cannot be determined at this time. The potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources are not expected to be substantially different as a result of modifications to the site development plans, compared to the original design. The avoidance and minimization measures recommended in the biological resources assessment dated January 28, 2019 would be applicable for the reductio n and mitigation of expected impacts to sensitive biological resources related to the modified site development plans. It is important to note that a compensatory mitigation plan would be necessary to offset proposed impacts to the blue line drainage, which would need to be reviewed and approved by agencies with jurisdiction over the drainage (i.e., California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 3 Based on review of the updated site plans, no new impacts to sensitive biological resources have been identified and overall realignment and modification to the existing jurisdictional drainage has been reduced. As such, it is expected that implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures recommended in the January 2019 biological resources assessment memorandum will avoid and/or minimize impacts to potentially occurring sensitive biological resources to a less than significant level. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at knelson@terraverdeweb.com or (702) 596-5038. Sincerely, Kristen Nelson Botanist T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 4 References Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2019a. Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project, 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino, Atascadero, California (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342- 010). Technical Memorandum. January 28, 2019. _____2019b. Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report, Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project, Atascadero, California. Consultant Report. March 2019. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting August 19, 2024 Scott Newton Owner Arroyo Grande, California Email: Scott@manyfigs.com Subject: Atascadero Duplex Units Project Addendum to the 2019 Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum and 2020 Addendum for the Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project, 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino, Atascadero, California (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) Dear Mr. Newton This document serves as an addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment developed by Terra Verde in 2019 and subsequent addendum in 2020. The proposed project has changed since the previous addendum was completed and an additional addendum is required to address modifications to the site development plans and timing of project related activities. Previously, the project consisted of development of storage units, an office building, and a residential dwelling. The newly proposed project consists of the construction of 42 duplex units. Parcel 045-342-010 (Lot No. 5) is approximately 2.35 acres in size and will have 30 units. Parcel 045-342-009 (Lot No. 7) is approximately 1.89 acres in size and will have 12 units. The project will still require modifications to the unnamed drainage and a stormwater retention basin will be utilized to manage stormwater flow. To support this addendum, JBD Environmental Consulting (JBD) principal biologist Jamie Deutsch completed a literature review and performed a reconnaissance level field survey to document the existing conditions of the project site on September 12, 2024. Prior to field survey, Mr. Deutsch conducted a review of available background information including aerial photography of the project area (Google Earth 2024). In addition, the following resources were reviewed for information about the property and regional vicinity: • Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project (Terra Verde 2019) • Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report for the Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project (Terra Verde 2019) • Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self- Storage Development Project (Terra Verde 2020) • Historic Site Development Plans • Conceptual Site Plan for the Atascadero Duplex Units Project (LSA Architects 2024) • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (USGS 2024) • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Online Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2024); and 0 JBD Environmental Consulting 1 | Page Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures The 2019 BRA, 2020 Addendum, and 2019 Delineation identify the presence of sensitive biological resources on the subject property. After completing the site visit, JBD reviewed these documents to determine to assess their suitability to the updated project design. Previous Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) were reviewed and updated (AMMs) are discussed below to reduce impacts from the updated project design to less than significant levels. Special Status Plant Species Terra Verde conducted a seasonally-timed botanical survey for special status plant species with potential to occur on the property. The survey occurred in 2019 and was conducted during the blooming period for all species with potential to occur. These species include: • Cambria morning-glory (Calystegia subacaulis subsp. episcopalis), California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 4.2 • San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora subsp. obispoensis), CRPR 1B.2 • Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii), CRPR 1B.1 • Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), CRPR 4.2 • San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana), CRPR 1B.2 • Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), federal threatened / CRPR 1B.1 • Shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis subsp. radians), CRPR 1B.2. CRPR 1B and 2 plant species are typically regarded as rare, threatened, or endangered under the CEQA by lead CEQA agencies and were considered as such in this document. CRPR 3 and 4 plant species are typically not considered for analysis under CEQA except where they are designated as rare or otherwise protected by local governments. Botanical surveys are typically valid for up to 5 years. Therefore, we recommend the completion of updated botanical surveys on the property during the spring and summer of 2025. The following AMM is proposed to be amended to the 2019 BRA: AMM 5: Special Status Plant Species Surveys Prior ground disturbing activities and when plants with potential to occur are in a phenological stage conducive to positive identification (i.e., usually during the blooming period for the species), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for special status plant species within the project site. Valid botanical surveys will be considered current for up to five years; if construction has not commenced within five years of the most recent survey, botanical surveys must be repeated. Special Status Wildlife Species Terra Verde determined the habitats onsite could support four special status wildlife species known to occur in the regional vicinity. These species include: • Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), California Species of Special Concern (CSC) • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), CSC • Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), CSC • Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), CSC 0 JBD Environmental Consulting 2 | Page In addition to the species listed above, the project site has potential to support nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. JBD determined AMM 3: Pre-construction Surveys for Roosting Bats and AMM 4: Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds are suitable and appropriate to reduce impacts to special status wildlife species to a less than significant level. Therefore, no additional AMMs are proposed. Sensitive Plant Communities Terra Verde did not document the presence of sensitive plant communities identified by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) or communities identified as sensitive in the current List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFW, 2023). Therefore, no additional AMMs are proposed. Potential project-related impacts to streambed/riparian habitat potentially subject to regulation by CDFW under Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC are addressed below. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Terra Verde conducted a jurisdictional delineation on both APNs in 2019. JBDs site visit was limited to a site reconnaissance survey and did not include a supplemental delineation to confirm the findings from the 2019 report. Terra Verde concluded that no federal wetlands are present on the property. However, the project site contains an unnamed ephemeral drainage channel and associated riparian vegetation. Future development on the project site will result in temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources, including other waters, and riparian habitats. This impact is disclosed and mitigated in both the BRA and addendum through implementation of AMM:1 Protection of Hydrologic Resources and AMM 2: Compensatory Mitigation Plan. The project proponent will acquire all applicable regulatory permits for jurisdictional areas that cannot be fully avoided. There will be no work within jurisdictional areas until all necessary regulatory permits have been acquired. Local Policies and Ordinances The City has established a zoning regulation that requires a 20-foot setback off blue line creeks (Appendix A - Figure 1). The setback distance is defined in terms of the distance from the edge of the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). During the survey, JBD measured an average width of 13 feet for the OHWM. To ensure the project does not conflict with local policies and ordinances, the following AMM is proposed: AMM 6: Implementation of Best Management Practices. • Prior to ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities, a setback area of 20-feet from the drainage will be fenced with orange construction fencing and signed to prohibit entry. Fencing should be located a minimum of 20 feet from the OHWM and shall be maintained throughout the construction or until regulatory permits to impact the drainage have been acquired. • To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, appropriate erosion control best management practices (i.e., installation of silt fencing) will be implemented to minimize adverse effects on the drainage. The silt fencing shall be installed prior to commencing 0 JBD Environmental Consulting 3 | Page construction in adjacent areas and maintained throughout construction or until regulatory permits to impact the drainage have been acquired. • Any substances which could be hazardous to aquatic species resulting from project-related activities will be prevented from entering the drainage • All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 50 feet from the drainage and in a location where a potential spill would not drain directly toward the drainage. Prior to the onset of work activities, a plan will be in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. Conclusion The potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources are not expected to be substantially different as a result of modifications to the site development plans, compared to the original design. The implementation of AMMs 1-4 in addition to AMMs 5 and 6 from this addendum will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this important project. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, JBD Environmental Consulting, LLC Jamie Deutsch, QSP/D Principal Biologist 0 JBD Environmental Consulting 4 | Page References Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. List of Sensitive Natural Communities. April 4, 2022. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. Accessed December 2021. California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.8-03-0.39. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org. Google Earth. 2022. Available at: http://earth.google.com/ Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC. 2019a. Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project, 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino, Atascadero, California (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010). Technical Memorandum. January 28, 2019. _____2019b. Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report, Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project, Atascadero, California. Consultant Report. March 2019. _____2020. Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment Memorandum for the Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project, 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino, Atascadero, California (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010). December 8, 2020. United States Department of Agricultural (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Web Soil Survey. Accessed December 2024. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2024. National Wetland Inventory Data Mapper Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html United States Geological Survey. 2024. National Hydrography dataset. via The National Map. https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/. University and Jepson Herbaria, University of California, Berkeley. 2024. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/. 0 JBD Environmental Consulting 5 | Page Appendix A – Site Map 0 JBD Environmental Consulting St mw Legend Project Boundary Unnamed Drainage *Ordinary High Water Mark I--*20-foot Ordinary High Water Mark Setback Silt Fence Atascadero Duplex Units Project Sources:Imagery by ESRI,2024 Coordinate System:NAD83 State Plane Zone 5 0 JBDNScale1:1,000 Environmental Consulting Feet 0 50 100LastUpdated:9/19/2024 Created by:SierraGIS $ 6 | Page Appendix B – Photographs 0 JBD Environmental Consulting 7 | Page Photograph 1. View southeast of willlow (riparian) and where channel enters property through box culvert. Photograph 2. View southwest of OHWM associated with the channel Photograph 3. View west of OHWM associated with the channel. Photograph 4. View northeast of where channel exits property beneath Viejo Camino. 0 JBD Environmental Consulting Attachment 2: Federal Wetland Delineation Report This page intentionally left blank Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Dove Creek Self-Storage Development Project Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California Prepared for: Mr. Scott Newton Arroyo Grande, California Prepared by: Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 March 2019 V T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California i DISCLAIMER Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (hereafter, Terra Verde) has prepared this waters and wetlands delineation report for use by Mr. Scott Newton (owner). The results and conclusions of this report are conditional upon final approval by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Results and conclusions presented in this report are based upon information available in the public domain (e.g., United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps, the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Surveys, aerial photographs from various sources, etc.), as well as Terra Verde’s on-site reconnaissance, data collection, and analyses, which were completed using standard methods. Results and conclusions presented herein represent the best professional judgment of Terra Verde technical staff. In this context, surveying/boundary locations developed by Terra Verde are assumed to be true and correct. _______ Brian Dugas Principal Biologist Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC March 05, 2019___ _____ Date ___ Kristen Nelson Botanist Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC March 05, 2019____ Date T E R R A -V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) was retained by Mr. Scott Newton (owner) to complete a formal delineation of waters and wetlands under the jurisdiction of federal resource agencies for the proposed Dove Creek Self-storage Development (project), located at 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) in the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County (County), California. Field surveys included a delineation of all federal waters and wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Co rps). The survey area encompassed the entire proposed project area and the immediately surrounding wetland and riparian habitats. This report has been developed by Terra Verde using current Corps guidance concerning waters and wetlands delineations. Determinations are based on field observations made in 2018. Information offered in this report is arranged to describe the delineation objectives, discuss pertinent regulatory contexts, explain the approach and methodology used by Terra Verde in this delineation, and provide a summary of technical results. This report is intended to provide details regarding aquatic resources on site and may be used to support permit application(s) to the Corps, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality and Control Board for the proposed development Terra Verde determined that no federal wetlands are present on the project site; however, 581 linear feet of non-wetland waters of the U.S. were mapped on the subject property. As necessary, this information may be used to support regulatory permits and/or project approvals from the Corps, the City of Atascadero and other resource agencies. The results of the delineation, as described in this report, are conditional upon a review and final jurisdictional determination by the Corps. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Site Characteristics ........................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Current and Historical Land Uses ................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Geomorphology and Landscape Context ....................................................................... 2 1.1.3 Regional Climate ............................................................................................................. 2 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXTS ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Rationale for the Determination of the Geographic Extent of Waters of the U.S. .............. 2 2.2 Consistency with SWANCC & Rapanos Guidance ................................................................ 3 3.0 Field Delineation Methods .............................................................................................. 4 3.1 Overview of Methodology .................................................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Delineation of Wetlands ................................................................................................. 5 3.1.2 Delineation of Non-wetland Waters .............................................................................. 8 4.0 Results ........................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Wetlands Determination ...................................................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Non-Wetland Waters Determination ................................................................................... 9 5.0 Summary of Jurisdictional Findings ............................................................................... 10 6.0 References ................................................................................................................... 11 T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California iv LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Report Figures Figure 1: Site Vicinity and Topographic Map Figure 2: Project Site and Survey Area Map Figure 3: Hydrologic Connectivity Map Figure 4: Soil Units Map Figure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C – Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets Appendix D – Representative Site Photographs T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This waters and wetlands delineation report was prepared by Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) on behalf of Mr. Scott Newton (owner) in support of the proposed Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project (project) located at 11505 El Camino Real and 11450 Viejo Camino (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) in the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County (County), California (see Appendix A - Figure 1: Site Vicinity and Topographic Map). This report summarizes the regulatory context, methods, and results of field surveys, which focused on the delineation of federal wetlands and waters of the United States (waters of the U.S.), as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The survey area included the entire proposed project area, as well as immediately adjacent wetland and riparian habitats (see Appendix A – Figure 2: Project Site and Survey Area Map). The project site encompasses approximately 4.15 acres of grazed grassland, which is bisected by an unnamed United States Geological Survey (USGS) blue line drainage. This drainage enters the property via a culvert under El Camino Real and meanders generally northeast across the project site before entering a second culvert under Viejo Camino. This drainage eventually discharges into Paloma Creek approximately 0.25 mile northeast of the project site. Paloma Creek flows directly to the Salinas River and eventually the traditionally navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean (see Appendix A – Figure 3: Hydrologic Connectivity Map). This report has been developed following guidance from the San Francisco District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA and Corps, 2008) pertaining to wetland delineations. The results of the delineation are based on field observations made in April and June 2017, and are subject to final review and approval by the Corps. As needed, this report may be used in acquiring regulatory permits and/or project approvals. 1.1 Overview of Site Characteristics 1.1.1 Current and Historical Land Uses The project site is undeveloped and used as a grazing pasture for a herd of goats. The site is immediately bordered by two public roads – El Camino Real and Viejo Camino, as well as an empty lot on the northwest, and a single-family residence on the southeast. The surrounding landscape consists of residential and commercial developments at variable densit ies (see Figure 2). The topography, soils, and vegetation of the proposed project site and surrounding areas have been altered considerably through past land conversion, construction of adjacent residential areas, and other anthropogenic alterations (e.g., goat grazing, culverts/stormwater T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 1.0 Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 2 infrastructure, etc.). A review of historical aerial imagery indicates the condition of the site has remained relatively unchanged since at least 1994 (Google Earth, 1994-2018). 1.1.2 Geomorphology and Landscape Context The project site is located in the Salinas USGS Hydrologic Unit and the Santa Margarita Creek- Salinas River watershed, which includes Paloma Creek and associated tributaries (see Appendix A – Figure 3). Elevations within the survey area range from 271 to 280 meters (890 to 920 feet). The project site is situated just west of the Rinconada Fault line in a valley between unnamed ridgelines of the San Luis Ranges (Wiegers and Hart, 2015; USGS, 2018). The geology of the project site consists of young alluvial floodplain deposits, comprised of silty sand and sandy gravel with cobbles deposited along the valley floor (Wiegers and Hart, 2015). Hydrologic resources on the property are limited to a single, ephemeral drainage that conveys surface runoff and storm flows from adjacent areas. 1.1.3 Regional Climate The regional climate is Mediterranean, with mild, rainy winters and hot, dry summers. Historical temperature and precipitation data was acquired from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) for Paso Robles (Station No. 046730). According to available data, average annual precipitation for a 122-year (1894 to 2016) period for the project region is 15.21 inches (WRCC, 2018). The average minimum and maximum temperatures calculated for the same time period are 60°F in January and 93°F in July and August (WRCC, 2012). REGULATORY CONTEXTS 2.1 Rationale for the Determination of the Geographic Extent of Waters of the U.S. Delineation of the geographic extent of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the survey area was consistent with definitions provided in 33 CFR 328.3 (a) (1-8), 328.3 (b, c, and e), as well as routine procedures detailed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (Corps, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (2008 Arid West Regional Supplement) (Corps, 2008). As defined in Section 404 of the CWA, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non -tidal waters extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and includes all adjacent wetlands. The following definitions are used by the Corps and EPA for the identification of wetlands and, as such, were used for the identification and delineation of wetlands at the project s ite: T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 2.0 Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 3 Waters of the U.S. are defined in Section 404 of the CWA as: "All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; including all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce." Further, wetlands are considered waters of the U.S., and are identified as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." The Corps uses a three-parameter approach for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands, where a wetland is defined as a feature associated with waters of the U.S., which is characterized by a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. 2.2 Consistency with SWANCC & Rapanos Guidance Following U.S. Supreme Court rulings in two prominent court cases addressing the extent of federal jurisdiction (i.e., Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County [SWANCC] v. Corps et al. [531 U.S. 159, 2001]; and Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States [547 U.S. 715, 2006]) led to the development of federal guidance that requires careful examination and documentation of the physical location(s) of and hydrologic connections among waters and wetlands. To determine federal jurisdiction, emphasis is given to surface hydrologic connections between a wetland and “navigable waters” or “adjacency” of a wetland to traditionally navigable waters, and, thus, a “significant nexus” to interstate commerce. In addition, waters and wetland features c an be determined to be under federal jurisdiction by the Corps or EPA if a significant nexus can be shown between the wetland feature in question and its contribution to the maintenance or restoration of the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of d ownstream waters that are traditionally navigable. Federal guidance for field delineation procedures that address the Rapanos decision has been offered by the EPA and the Corps in a joint memorandum issued on June 5, 2007 (EPA and Corps, 2008). T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 4 FIELD DELINEATION METHODS 3.1 Overview of Methodology Prior to conducting field surveys, a desktop review was completed, which included a review of current and historical aerial imagery (Google Earth, 1994 - 2018), an online Soil Survey for the County of San Luis Obispo (U.S. Dept. of Ag., 2018), USGS topographic maps (USGS, 2018), regional weather data (WRCC, 2012), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS, 2018), and preliminary site development plans. Terra Verde botanists Kristen Nelson and Amy Golub completed a formal wetland delineation on May 17, 2018 along the vegetated channel bottom and lower floodplain terrace associated with the drainage on site. Delineation methods followed routine procedures detailed in the 1987 Manual (Corps, 1987) and the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps, 2008). In addition, wetlands were classified based on hydrogeomorphic classes (e.g., riverine, slope, etc.) described by Brinson (1993) and Brinson et al. (1995). Field delineation of wetlands included an assessment of the hydrology, soil characteristics, and vegetation at three sampling points (i.e., SP-01, SP-02, and SP-03). Data was recorded using the Wetland Determination Data Form provided in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps, 2008). At each sampling point, a soil test pit was excavated to a depth of at least 12 inches, vegetation was characterized within a 5-foot radius of the excavated soil test pit, and indicators of wetland hydrology were documented (see Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms). Sampling was conducted in areas that displayed apparent indicators of wetland hydrology and vegetation. The assessment of non-wetland waters included identifying the presence of field indicators for OHWM within the subject drainage. This assessment followed guidelines provided in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Ari d West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Manual) (Lichvar and McColley, 2008). In addition, all waters and wetlands were assessed for hydrologic connectivity and/or adjacency to traditionally navigable waters and their tributaries. Connectivity was confirmed by determining that the unnamed drainage on site is hydrologically connected to Paloma Creek and the traditionally navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean via the Salinas River (see Appendix A – Figure 3). The limits of waters and wetlands of the U.S. were pin-flagged in the field and then recorded using a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 5 3.1.1 Delineation of Wetlands Evidence of Wetland Hydrology Consistent with the 1987 Manual (Corps, 1987), the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps, 2008), and current regulatory guidance (Corps, 1992), wetland hydrology can be identified by evaluating a variety of direct and indirect indicators, including stream gauge or well data, flood predictions (i.e., FEMA maps), historic records pertaining to the study area, and visual observation of field indicators for the identification of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Field indicators may include inundation and/or saturation, sediment deposition, drainage patterns, hydric soil characteristics, watermarks, drift lines, presence of oxidized pores associated with living roots and rhizomes (i.e., rhizospheres), and water-stained leaves (Corps, 1987). Wetland hydrology is present at a location if field observations indicate the area has a high probability of being periodically inundated or saturated to the soil surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the surface soil environment (i.e., root zone) (Corps, 1987). According to guidance provided in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement, if at least one primary indicator or at least two secondary indicators of hydrology are present at a sample point, the wetland hydrology criterion is met (Corps, 2008). Observations of wetland hydrology were recorded at each sample point to document evidence of inundation or soil saturation. Several types of evidence were examined to determine whether wetland hydrology previously existed or currently exists. In addition, the type and frequen cy of site manipulation and anthropogenic disturbances were considered for their potential to impact or alter current and historical site hydrology. Identification of Hydric Soils The presence of hydric soils was assessed based on the criteria outlined in the 1987 Manual (Corps, 1987) and the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps, 2008). Hydric soils are defined as soils “that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part ” (U.S. Dept. of Ag., 1994). Determination of whether or not a soil is hydric is based on the fulfillment of at least one of four technical criteria (U.S. Dept. of Ag., 2002), which can be satisfied using a combination of published soils information and field indicators. Field indicators for determining whether a soil satisfies the hydric soil definition and the technical criteria for hydric soils are listed in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (U.S. Dept. of Ag., 2006). Following the guidance provided in the above-referenced documents, the presence of hydric soils within the survey area was determined using a combination of direct field observations and a T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 6 review of available online resources, including the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Web Soil Survey (U.S. Dept. of Ag., 2018) and the USFWS NWI (USFWS, 2018). In the field, soil test pits were excavated at each of three sampling points to examine the upper 12 inches of the soil profile for hydric soil indicators. Specifically, a Munsell Soil Color Book (2000) was used to classify the colors of matrix soils and redoximorphic (redox) concentrations within the matrix. The 2017 Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Indicators (Wetland Training Institute [WTI], 2017) was used to determine the texture of soils, and to assess the location, type, and extent of matrix soil colors and redox concentrations, to determine whether they qualified as hydric soils. According to the NRCS online soil survey of San Luis Obispo County, three soil units occur within the survey area (U.S. Dept. of Ag., 2018). These include: Unit 193 (San Andreas-Arujo complex, 9 to 15 percent slopes), Unit 198 (Santa Lucia-Lopez complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes), and Unit 208 (Still clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes) (see Figure 4 – Soil Units Map). These soil units are not listed as hydric soils (U.S. Dept. of Ag., 2018). A summary of the dominant characteristics of these soil types is provided below. Soil Unit 193 – San Andreas-Arujo complex, 9 to 15 percent slopes The parent material of this soil type is residuum weathered from sandstone. The drainage class of this unit is well drained, and it is composed of sandy loam over weathered bedrock. This soil type tends to occur on back slopes and side slopes and is designated as farmland of statewide importance. Soil Unit 198 – Santa Lucia-Lopez complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes The parent material of this soil type is residuum weathered from shale. The drainage class of this unit is well drained, and it is composed of channery clay loam over weathered bedrock. This soil type tends to occur on back slopes and side slopes. Soil Unit 208 – Still clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes The parent material of this soil is alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The drainage class of this unit is well drained, and it is composed mostly of clay loam and stratified loam to clay loam. This soil type tends to occur on toe slopes and treads and is considered prime farmland if irrigated. Dominance of Hydrophytic Vegetation On June 1, 2012, the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) (Lichvar et al., 2012) replaced the 1988 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National list of plant species that occur in wetlands for use under the CWA, Swamp Buster, and National Wetland Inventory programs. The NWPL and regional supplements have since been revised with updated plant listings. The Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (2016 Regional List) (Lichvar et al., 2016) is the most current version T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 7 available for use in the Arid West region, including coastal areas of California. The updated 2016 Regional List indicates the relative frequency that a species occurs in wetland habitats and is used to determine whether the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is met when conducting wetland delineations under the CWA. Species included on the 2016 Regional List are assigned one of the following wetland indicator statuses (Lichvar et al., 2012): • Obligate (OBL): plants that almost always occur in wetlands. • Facultative Wetland (FACW): plants that usually occur in wetlands but may occur in non- wetlands. • Facultative (FAC): plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non -wetlands. • Facultative Upland (FACU): plants that usually occur in non-wetlands but may occur in wetlands. • Upland (UPL): plants that almost never occur in wetlands; plants not included on the list are considered UPL. Dominance of hydrophytic vegetation is determined by identifying all plant species within a 5- foot radius surrounding each soil excavation pit for herbaceous and shrub cover, and a 30-foot radius for tree and woody vine cover; documenting the absolute percent cover of each species within each stratum (i.e., herb, shrub, tree, and woody vine) for the sampling plot; and noting the indicator status for each (i.e., UPL, FACU, FAC, FACW, or OBL). None of the sampling points supported tree, shrub, or woody vine cover. Dominant species were then determined using the 50/20 rule, as recommended in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps, 2008). Based on this method, dominant species are those species that individually or collectively constitute more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover (i.e., relative cover) within each stratum, in addition to those species that individually constitute 20 percent or more of the relative cover within each vegetation stratum. Species identifications and taxonomic nomenclature follow ed the second edition of The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al., 2012), as well as taxonomic updates provided in the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project, 2018). According to both the Corps’ 1987 Manual (Corps, 1987) and 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps, 2008), the hydrophytic vegetation parameter for wetlands is met when, under normal circumstances, more than 50 percent of the dominant species across all strata have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. Connectivity/Adjacency As noted above, particular emphasis is given to surface hydrologic connectivity of wetlands to traditionally navigable waters, including adjacency of wetlands to jurisdictional waters. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 8 Connectivity of wetlands was established via field work, a review of aerial imagery, and an assessment of site-specific topography. 3.1.2 Delineation of Non-wetland Waters Within the project site, the unnamed drainage exhibits a narrow, gently-sloped channel that meanders across an open grassy field. Despite grazing impacts, the banks and channel bottom are vegetated with herbaceous species, with a clear change in the composition and cover from the channel bottom to the bank and adjacent low terrace. As such, these areas were assessed for evidence of an OHWM to determine the presence of waters of the U.S. The OHWM Manual (Lichvar and McColley, 2008) provides guidance on identifying field indicators of OHWM, including protocols for characterizing the overall system. Data was recorded using the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Data Sheet) (Curtis and Lichvar, 2010). Completed data sheets are provided in Appendix C (Arid West Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams OHWM Datasheets). Cross-sectional Analysis Cross sectional analyses were conducted at three locations along each drainage feature where there was a clear change in the limits of either the OHWM or the top of bank. The physical and biological characteristics present at each cross section were documented on OHWM Data Sheets, including a sketch of the site topography at each cross section. Specifically, th e floodplain units were described for each cross section through the vegetation cover, sediment texture, and hydrology indicators at that location. The limits of OHWM were determined based on the presence of hydrology indicators such as debris wracking, shelving, water marks, and change in sediment texture/substrate. Connectivity/Adjacency Connectivity to adjacent traditional navigable waters was assessed via field investigations, a review of aerial photography, and information obtained regarding storm wate r and other underground water collection systems. RESULTS 4.1 Wetlands Determination Terra Verde completed a wetland delineation in May 2018 and determined that no federal wetlands are present within the project site. The results of the delineation and sampling point data was documented on Wetland Determination Data Forms (Appendix B) and is detailed below. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting 4.0 Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 9 4.1.1 Hydrology Field observations of wetland hydrology were limited to secondary indicators, including: riverine drift deposits (B3), drainage patterns (B10), and saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9). In addition, the FAC-Neutral Test (D5) was documented as a secondary indicator at SP-02. Wetland hydrology was determined to be present at all three sampling points (see Figure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map). 4.1.2 Soils Soil test pits were excavated at each sampling point to classify the color and texture of the soil horizons down to at least 12 inches. Soil textures consisted of clay loam with a significant component of organic matter at all three sampling points. No hydric soils were identified on site. A soil color of 10YR 2/1 was documented at all three sampling points, with no redox features present (see Appendix D – Representative Site Photographs, Photo 1). 4.1.3 Vegetation Greater than 50 percent relative cover of hydrophytic vegetation was documented at all three sampling points, which was dominated by common lippia (Phyla nodiflora; FACW), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum; FAC), and beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides; FAC). Vegetation on the banks of the drainage and adjacent areas transitions to a composition of non-wetland species dominated by wall barley (Hordeum murinum), heart- podded hoary cress (Lepidium draba), and occasional dense patches of yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), as well as other grazed grasses. 4.2 Non-Wetland Waters Determination The unnamed drainage is likely considered non-wetland waters of the U.S. based on the presence of a clearly-defined OHWM, indicated by a distinct transition in vegetative cover and composition between the channel bottom and gently-sloped bank, and connectivity to traditionally navigable waters. Based on a review of aerial imagery, this drainage appears to originate somewhere in the foothills of the San Luis Range Mountains west of Atascadero. It flows through areas of rural residential, agricultural, and commercial developments, and has been substantially modified i n the areas upstream of the project site. It enters the project site through a partially impeded culvert under El Camino Real, and exits the site through another partially blocked culvert under Viejo Camino. Due to the historical alterations of natural flow patterns in the surrounding landscape, the project site is occasionally subject to temporary inundation and ponding following significant precipitation events. However, the drainage system is generally ephemeral and a lack T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 10 of hydric soils indicates that the site is well drained, likely only ponding for brief periods following significant rain events. SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS The jurisdictional waters identified on the project site fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps. A summary of the type and extent of jurisdictional waters and wetlands is presented in Table 1 - Extent and Location of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands. Table 1. Extent and Location of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Feature Type Location Acres Length (feet) Waters of the U.S. Ephemeral drainage 0.08 581 Federal Wetlands None N/A N/A Table 2 (Summary of Sampling Point Data for Wetland Delineation ), provides a summary of the data collected at each of the three sampling points during the wetland delineation. Table 2. Summary of Sampling Point Data for Wetland Delineation Sample Point Wetland Vegetation Hydric Soils Wetland Hydrology Connectivity/ Adjacency Federal Wetland SP-01 Yes No Yes Yes No SP-02 Yes No Yes Yes No SP-03 Yes No Yes Yes No The geographic extent of waters of the U.S. totals approximately 581 linear feet and 0.08 acre within the project site, but no federal wetlands are present. Section 404 of the CWA requires authorization from the Corps for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the U.S., including adjacent wetlands. The findings of this federal waters and wetlands delineation is subject to review and final concurrence by the Corps. T E R R A -V E R D E Environmental Consulting 5.0 Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 11 REFERENCES Baldwin, Bruce G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Brinson, M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP -DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Brinson, M., F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nutter, R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, and W higham, D. 1995. A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to riverine wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. NTIS No. AD A308 365. Google Earth Pro V 7.1.8.3036 (1994-2018). San Luis Obispo County, California. 35.453629 / -120.637411. Google 2018. Accessed May through December 2018. Jepson Flora Project, Regents of the University of California. 2018. Jepson eFlora. Available online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed May 2018. Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McColley. 2008. A field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. A Delineation Manual. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lichvar, R.W., N.C. Melvin, M.L. Butterwick, and W.N Kirchner. 2012. National Wetland Plant List Indicator Rating Definitions. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings – Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2016- 30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Munsell. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., New Windsor, NY. Rapanos et ux., at al. v. United States. 547 U.S. 715, 2006. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (June 19, 2006). JUSTIA US Supreme Court. Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/715/opinion.html. Accessed September 28, 2017. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) et al. 531 U.S. 15, 2001. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. (January 9, 2001). JUSTIA US Supreme Court. Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/159/case.html. Accessed: September 28, 2017. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California 12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. ______. 1992. “Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual.” 3-92 Memorandum. ______. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Federal Register. Washington, D.C. ______. 2002. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Federal Register. Washington, D.C. ______. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W. Hurt, L.M. Vasilas, editors. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. ______. 2018. Custom Soil Resources Report for San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Joint memorandum issued June 5, 2007. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. National Wetland Inventory Mapper. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed May through December 2018. U.S. Geological Survey. 2018. The National Map. San Luis Obispo County, 35.453629 / -120.637411. Available online at: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/. Accessed December 2018. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2018. Paso Robles, California (046730) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary (01/01/1894 – 06/10/2016). Available online at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6730. Accessed December 2018. Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 2017. 2017 Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators: Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.0. Wiegers, M.O. and E.W. Hart. 2015. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Santa Margarita 7.5' Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California. Available online at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/rgmp/Prelim_geo_pdf/SantaMargarita_24k_v1.0.pdf. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California APPENDIX A: Report Figures Figure 1: Site Vicinity and Topographic Map Figure 2: Project Site and Survey Area Map Figure 3: Hydrologic Connectivity Map Figure 4: Soil Units Map Figure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California This page intentionally left blank. T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting ^_ £¤101 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ^_ ¬«1 ¬«46 ¬«41 ¬«58 £¤101 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, andthe GIS User Community, Esri, HERE,DeLorme, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the San Luis Obisp o Cou nty Monterey Co unty P a c i f i cOcean ^_Project Location Survey Area ¯ Dove Creek Self-storage Project - Waters and Wetlan ds DelineationFigure 1: Site Vicinity and To pograp hic Map 0 10.5 Miles 20 Dec 201 8 El C a m in o R eal Viejo Camino Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community Survey Area Unnamed Blue Line D rainage Dove Creek Self-storage Project - Waters and Wetlan ds DelineationFigure 2: Project Site and Su rvey Area Map 20 Dec 201 8 ¯0 250125Feet Stream data: County of San Luis Obispo, 2006; accessed February 2014 El C a m in o R eal Viejo C a m in o Paloma CreekS alin a s R iv er Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User Community Survey Area Blue Line Drainage Dove Creek Self-storage Project - Waters and Wetlan ds DelineationFigure 3: Hydrologic Connectivity Map 20 Dec 201 8 ¯0 0.50.25 Miles Stream data: County of San Luis Obispo, 2006. El C a m in o R eal Viejo Camino Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community 20 Dec 2018 Survey Are a Unnamed Blue Line Drainage Soi Units San An dreas-Arujo Complex, 9 -15 % Slope s Santa Lucia-Lopez Complex, 15-50% Slopes Still Clay Loam, 0-2% Slopes Dove Creek Self-storage Project - Waters and Wetlands DelineationFigure 4: Soil Units Map ¯0 250125Feet 3lobe,GeoEye,Earthstar Geographies,CNES/Akbus DS, Getmapping,Aerogrid,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS ) El C a m in o R eal Viejo Camino SP-03 SP-02 SP-01 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GISUser Community 05 Feb 2019 Survey Ar ea Waters of the State, U.S.* OHWM/Wetland Delineation Sampling Points *Extent of waters of the state and U.S. mapped by Terra Verde in May 2018. Dove Creek Self-storage Project - Waters and Wetlands DelineationFigure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map ¯0 250125Feet o Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California APPENDIX B: Wetland Determination Data Forms T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region os \n [\e>Project/Site:PffVV t ^S~\0^4 Applicant/Owner:\CQ l i N\"L-\\A V T - Investigator(s):Township,Range:0/\^1 Z.£Z Sw^\-a ftr-f^CAPlfcfr c loCity/County:Sampling Date: CfV Sampling Point:&\State: .Cor\C^<?Slope (%):0 _Datum:NJAPg8 f Landform (hillslope,terrace,etc.): Subregion (LRR):L l r -( . Soil Map Unit Name: Local relief (concave,convex,none ) 3S,Hs3^\Long:'lZLat:SHU c an kevAA NWI classification: (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are "Normal Circumstances”present?Yes _ (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) Are climatic /hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes Are Vegetation ,Soil Are Vegetation No /significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations ,transects ,important features ,etc. ,or Hydrology ,or Hydrology No Soil yHydrophyticVegetationPresent? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?NoYes Yes NoYes\No Urviri/Ho^y ioi \?u 4 pultfl.K noa^s .£\ie \s aiA +ys^n ^vVUj cpA -4^Uj £•(?.herniaI WMfpvrprtv),wR3K 6{(C($\cv&lltj ovc rfr -pc **{IMM prrtiml of jUf {VU VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator %Cover Species?Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: K)//ATreeStratum(Plot size: /2.1.(A ) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:33.(B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC:Ni /A =Total Cover (A /B)Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total %Cover of: 1. Multiply by:2. oOBLspecies FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: x 1 =3. HZ-x 2 =4. IRx3=5. 12-x 4 ==Total CoverH.5 yio '63HerbStratum(Plot size: 1.fhv|LA 3.tvi-nnuiev A u;\^\n A AUR |b?5x5=yHz.fACC-V fAL-C MfLr/R- 3 (B)LB (A )130 3 . 2 3PrevalenceIndex=B/A = £>4.fj?§VM.CA Pg'^4^r-->r-->\cI: 5.;' 6.ANTHCM \S rr \u 7.--8.oftrv-itur -t \ci <1 <1.twoH -fc !uiil WoodyVIrrB^Stratum-(Plot size:Y.HoE-PEVM ftAUgjisrt /V\y.S^ssun Ji^eA Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is <3.0 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) UPL5 2.1Xf\c iti\ \FA ^{U£kUR=Total Cover 1rt\cM Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic.U f L/ Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? =Total Cover /0o%Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust Yes No Remarks: AHA bUSVso *5A|6 w \jN (?iA &L &1 KANcmpfM IN sftanr|4?A4 £>iir\I /Si A6%lie IH 1»A Dj nctf'-'T I ALlCfll L y(b Lt v rV?Lb 5 m ci^Al M.U DF 4 A-'PNJ -ivfcTLAfst ^M fl /V /sA?L-,zep. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 2.0 *.V-i Nr Sampling Point:7 ^\SOIL Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches) Matrix Redox Features Type 1 Loc Remarks%Texture%Color (moist)Color (moist) (Mr mA V \\(OO fLU,m 6 H o^A location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix.Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs ,unless otherwise noted.) Histosol (AI ) Histic Epipedon (A 2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A 5)(LRR C ) 1 cm Muck (A9)(LRR D ) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11 ) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1 ) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 : 1 cm Muck (A9)(LRR C ) 2 cm Muck (A 10)(LRR B ) Reduced Vertic (F18 ) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6 ) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 ) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2 ) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6 ) Depleted Dark Surface (F7 ) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches ):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No Remarks: Vj \tM COt^C b 'f o -M W-bVt *,\y\il U/IVVV'V^IMD WtVCPa S ITE^WfcLl -1 PgAiNtD .Df t C }rA ute-(7'L ,fmut L <1\J lyf/t /z \2 -C-f '/Cn\[<:K7 HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimufn of one required;check all that apply ) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1)(Nonriverine ) Sediment Deposits (B2)(Nonriverine ) Drift Deposits (B 3)(Nonriverine ) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required ) Water Marks (B1)(Riverine ) Sediment Deposits (B2)(Riverine) Salt Crust (B11 ) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) MlDrift Deposits (B3)(Riverine ) Drainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3 )Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (QB)*1 1 ^ \J Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9 ) Shallow Aquitard (D3 ) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6 ) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Depth (inches ): No l Depth (inches ): NoYes Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes NoSaturationPresent?Yes (includes capillary fringe)mDescribeRecordedData(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: i Pnew ^L 0\l n irs)LLN'LV \O F t*r (t L o; I|\J UN j S ATV le-iA41^A v t ^,ftA-LC*JOIM6 S'ib f'-"F <(AKH \Ai iMTvz (K7 Pi fTn cr^~i Arid West -Version 2.0USArmyCorpsofEngineers K.. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region Project/Site:boVl PWH Applicant/Owner:SV.OV\K\\jSi\ Sampling Date:- ^Sampling Point:0 2^» CA -rz^is g \ze 1 City/County: St T'ttY.hieU^.A •()Au \is .F '%M’-'*-,sInvestigator(s):ection,Township,Range: Local relief (concave,convex,none):T v n .cT i/<. Lat:’T 2 ' "L<HO;^V-C> Landform (hillslope,terrace,etc.):F \N .Slope (%):• Datum:rOArO 0S^S -ltU c\^\\n^ Subregion (LRR): Soil Map Unit Name:FCM ANWIclassification:yAreclimatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes Are Vegetation Are Vegetation No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances”present?Yes _ (If needed,explcin any answers in Remarks.) ySoilsignificantlydisturbed? naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc. ,or Hydrology or Hydrology No Soil yHydrophyticVegetationPresent? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes r Yes V No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?,No \//Yes NoNo Remarks " Umevg ^p^lei kw <devM yL,rsstfantia-i cteuhfiwenix pu-UUd vpfft ,vvPXrhj '(if ^ica-fkj ^»4 tcX 'VJ '^£ph>i/vu>v *4 blu-e C c(rc\matu C\CW \-{'^p^itv}fit 0 £h PCC la 4 j \ocA<>ticnX c(4 lv£. VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants./0 \J/\vicj Cl tu ,'£ I 1,'c f Absolute Dominant Indicator %Cover Species?Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.(A) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:3.(B) 4 .Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC:\oo-Total Cover (A/B)t-J \PxSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: Prevalence Index worksheet: Total %Cover of: 1. Multiply bv: x 1 =C "' 2. OOBLspecies FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: 3.\6O~|5 x 2 =4.43 IHTx3=5. 5 L?t x 4 =(*'X \5 =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size:Puki k r-v.t>V )ir'u-\y :-p, 3,tAoUVCUfA r-/fl 4.Ct>NH >V ltA_A ytSTA'W A U £ 6.L&4?lD \UiNA DH AP)A 7.H i nsa\n L-D i 8.ANTVAU ivUt /"muLfi [61VS J f/y \SL\ Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:_^j j ^) \ox5=^u/Pc v\/(B )m1.(A)rxo t .0\Ha Prevalence Index =B/A = 12-UPL fficM Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:0 Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is <3.0 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) ProblemsV,Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) %%~vweu 1>MPL. Yl\CM %sr^dAr -4 j\ \ =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydri •Jutland hydrology must be present,unless arr 7*^rnatic.-U. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1. 2. =Total Cover v/No00%Bare Ground in Herb Straf"tm %Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks:e (e i /d i u v\cW.^t \c beiw -f jm\M 0 0 TM y\6.)T i t >y\i n \J4C\<fa {- -.X a rtCW'c lw (A,A }iquimtM \)t )V;v\>ex tvl a A\aCW(;{v<n n e l to fir ’S u p p^'t s CH,«OL| ipFin<?(IX t <i tv'M VA \ A aA Arid West -Version 2.0USArmyCorpsofEngineers oz-SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesMatrixDepth (inches)Loc2%.Color (moist)t RemarksColor(moist)%Type Texture \MJL2dl CtL0 UlfrH 0 .M ,I'6-zl± 2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix.1Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: 1 cm Muck (A9)(LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10)(LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol (AI ) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A 5)(LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9)(LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):NoHydricSoilPresent?Yes Remarks: DAKT rii.IUI/IMV,^\t \MiH Hlo>H c o o ,r A -v . 5 MAVI '[Co \s ©tfc .£lTt W S U *Poor’S <Z\rtVOVr<r HijOrnc Sens HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required:check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1)(Riverine) Sediment Deposits (B2)(Riverine) Drift Deposits (B3)(Riverine) V'J Drainage Patterns (B10) Salt Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1)(Nonriverine) Sediment Deposits (B2)(Nonriverine) Drift Deposits (B3)(Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) v Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Shallow Aquitard (D3)7FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ; Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Saturation Present? (includes capillary fringe)^Describe Recorded Data <sW uqe,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspec ions),if available: 7No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): No \/x Depth (inches): Yes 7 7'NoYes 'os Wetland Hydrology Prt sent?Yes No Remarks: l •WftlNftkv HM FLOODED ntoo; IlMVNPftTiONi /S'FTVtfFnTUyNj ,fpLioWitob si 6>wnt #t^r tVilNTtL StPl^vlS. Arid West -Version 2.0USArmyCorpsofEngineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Arid West Region cjC IV osjn /fvD0Vf.CyXitYVZlNe-wV'A fl C?P \V \O 4^Project /Site: Applicant/Owner: Investigator(s): Landform (hillslope,terrace,etc.):\Q Subregion (LRR):L City/County:Sampling Date: Sampling Point:0in-state: CA 'T2^Q 9-VI&Section,Township,Range: Local relief (concave,convex,none):Slope (%):0'£4 S32 4 Long:"I L(D‘Lo j >L?Datum: A-hU \(Avy\ftM-ASoilMapUnitName:NWI classification: (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are “Normal Circumstances”present?Yes _ (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) zAreclimatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Yes Are Vegetation ,Soil Are Vegetation No Z,or Hydrology ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? naturally problematic? SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects,important features,etc . No Soil 7HydrophyticVegetationPresent? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes Yes \/ No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?z yNoYesNoNo UrvWtapZ [Of jOftAtUd IO \A W \4 erc\i«d pu_bu£Xrhe )%field ,aU!ren+ly A. i »g (M f r s XMC &&*,u.W c K.g-vit -Ve*^%-f <>aA £(-y V \£ VEGETATION -Use scientific names of plants.~P>l \o W i V V\^ «5 y\ Wjr\Absolute Dominant Indicator %Cover Species?Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: Tree Stratum (Plot size:\1.(A) 2.Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:\3.(B) 4 . Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC:|PC1A=Total Cover (A/B)Saplinq/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:^.) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total %Cover of: 1. 2 .Multiply bv: X 1 =o_ x 2 =O 0OBLspecies FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species Column Totals: 3.o4. 0T 2Mx3=5. 3Z-1 x 4 = x 5 = \\0 (A)3 L?&(B) =Total CoverVx\^LZHerbStratum(Plot size: 1.H fvl A./\ 2 .Lfep I D i v r-A 3.Ar)g.&fc I.(M M!,I te,IN VI 2A 4 .tvlynv Cr\{j -o j y >iVy '-ny 5.'JO l \JU LM (I ,z.vt MCj < 6.„<'V » 7.f>;KH P\VYA-(S\:•t ^.rrn 8.r r i v v »A r as/ni n \0 (!hCtYU Prevalence Index =B/A = f /v>\Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:/Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is <3.0 Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) i£Ul d UfL 1 U£L_ \f\Ci \ "V US =Total Cover Woody-Vine^Stratunv -(Plot-sizer I^f ^STt\cn Pbl?t -r3 ror\ 1.for'';'-r |-LiK_ML 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic.(it Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? =Total Cover Yes i No0%Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust Remarks:f\iM {(^oanfAJay\+U Izt \r .t*xs ^mat \cit A n .s ,\i^AS^^Xh U -j tv!vv\i A of i v peivAif ^M ^tiT 4A i ^vlqc v CSY ?i >nr ;W- Cv-vzv %-vv £i c *f Z UVN US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description:(Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Redox FeaturesDepth (inches) Matrix Loc2%Color (moist)%RemarksColor(moist) ioHt-ni Type Texture '/CIUD'2 "W \^\A 0\0 o /- VL ’Type:C=Cono^ntration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains.2Location:PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:Hydric Soil Indicators:(Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9) 1 cm Muck (A9)(LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10)(LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A 2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5)(LRR C ) 1 cm Muck (A9)(LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present , unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):No 1HydricSoilPresent?Yes Remarks:HIGH C 0 NC ~xr>r 2?\\>MV , ic Wtu -'OPfcA f-*»t Set *~S HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required:check all that apply) Surface Water (A1) High Water Table (A 2) Saturation (A3) Water Marks (B1)(Nonrivetine) Sediment Deposits (B2)(Nonriverine) Drift Deposits (B3)(Nonriverine) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1)(Riverine) Sediment Deposits (B2)(Riverine) Drift Deposits (B3)(Riverine) t^brainage Patterns (B10) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Crayfish Burrows (C8) ^Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Shallow Aquitard (D3) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Salt Crust (B11) Biotic Crust (B12) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Thin Muck Surface (C7) .Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): 7YesNo jWetlandHydrologyPresent?Yes NoNoSaturationPresent?Yes (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspec ions),if available: Remarks * kpHtrW\C £«\L p£jftiNft6 C (jr4 f\NKU_\fO UYieMOiLfVUH HLUJ, \N 7 t^AT\o ^/SfcriA.iLrt 'oofsj AKL WUMTTtl V WVL 'MTW-AU|rDtu-w iiVi (p (?\^\r ( Arid West -Version 2.0USArmyCorpsofEngineers Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California APPENDIX B: Arid West Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams OHWM Datasheets T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHW .M Datasheet Project:VKProjectNumber:pcS 'S Stream:(Blue line ) Investigator (s ):L t f\.(^Uv/l^2? Date:O Z \\l \{%>Town'f t\a i C&d e*v>State:£dA- Photo begin file#: Time:1^4 *5 Photo end file#: Location Details :Y WCt N [H Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Datum:fv)/\ Coordinates:5S'.t/SBA Z'H |-3 ~l o Projection :Y [vf /N [_J Is the site significantly disturbed? Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:S \Tt \S BA ^M6Ud £©At>S £DtvUO^VWbdr ,IMUET 3 outvfc^rs tfN oercs itt THT.STIT A £%Btsv^A \t\itA B>Y <sc^tAbifc&KA *PAUC.WITH ot: 'I51ZK 4 Tk^vi Adcc/mtuAnoKJ.srrc eM 6OAIG. Brief site description:UNDGVtLt’FLD )oPfcfiO V |VL i>ropS \s~i it^»G cp O /APSWArs,P£A!Nf \£%(4 ITH S’-HALU)^b-AP <S )(AUdH Pf THt 5 fix tee-t\&c-ir -^NTHAOCCotU>to !|\ib s.11|A lR £ifl rOT iPlOBC IPVlArT (Or-A b. tc ( Checklist of resources (if available):Qj Aerial photography Dates:4 ~2o\~hTopographicmaps I I Stream gage data Gage number: Period of record:Z1 History of recent effective dischargesHResultsoffloodfrequencyanalysisI]Most recent shift -adjusted ratingHIGageheightsfor2-,5 -,10 -,and 25 -year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event v Geologic maps Vegetation maps Soils maps Rainfall/precipitation maps Existing delineation(s )for site Global positioning system (GPS ) Other studies \s Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units Active Floodplain Low Terrace % Low-Flow Channels OHVVM Paleo Channel Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM : 1.Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology andvegetationpresentatthesite. 2 .Select a representative cross section across the channel .Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units. 3 .Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units.a )Record the floodplain unit and GPS position. b )Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size)and the vegetation characteristics of thefloodplainunit. c)Identify any indicators present at the location. 4 .Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section . 5 .Identify the OHWM and record the indicators.Record the OHWM position via:Z]Mapping on aerial photograph 0 GPS Digitized on computer Other : Date:p's I (3 j Time:I UKProjectID:Cross section ID:0 ) Cross section drawing: MITSO m ^y-WAJVvT' { v OHYVM GPS point:QC S.S Q ( -MS3Z S3 /-\'2&M3'W>3b>3>o Indicators : Change in average sediment textureTH/hange in vegetation species3Changeinvegetationcover ^jBreak in bank slope_Other: Other : Comments: Lc\M f LtT^t H I'xrdv-j-'cL- CM LUb^Y UcobX.e U f i e K'l R\/-WV\\VAIVH UUITl.L a .4.^if v\^O ,x Active Floodplain EH Low TerraceFloodplainunit:Low-Flow Channel D /CC -n\GPS point : Characteristics of the floodplain unit : Average sediment texture:Qj/AM Total veg cover :3 C %Tree:Q Community successional stage: \C ]f\W'A7 %Herb:5%%Shrub: NA 3 Mid (herbaceous,shrubs,saplings )3 Late (herbaceous,shrubs,mature trees)vf Early (herbaceous &seedlings) Indicators: Mudcracks3RipplesE-j Drift and/or debrisH-Presence of bed and bank Benches Soil development Surface relief -Other :gV-ptL Other : Other: t. Comments : l CM )TL^v^c H Aro i jvj ^p f ?-LiN^<E (|(iVi <o cV C{-\A C? i^AHCT i ho L-Lb vfV(AO U b be l r\V i Sf 3>CC v U k 4 Or’vJtlYe Bvj !f -O :tXlh-;,?"Time:\jgpdProjectID:tFs 'S Cross section ID:<5>Z.Date: Cross section drawing: NJ (~~1V ’jLr**3*' ^\AJtt-1 'V IC'D CH\A WIL OHWM GPS point:DCS^-Q'l ^35MS^=\2^i (-rzjD.^^riJo Indicators: Change in average sediment textureP5TChangeinvegetationspecies Change in vegetation cover _Break in bank slope_Other : Other: Comments : \/e6tinTED swn ct' FAC —low ^rLows CH ^ijoc./v H A • SfCCCEr ^ Floodplain unit:0'Low-Flow Channel 0]Active Floodplain 0 Low Terrace GPS point:~Q?- Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Average sediment texture :Cl .A Ml Total veg cover:)Q 0 % Community successional stage: %Herb:\0Q %Tree:(J %Shrub: NA Mid (herbaceous,shrubs,saplings )0 Late (herbaceous,shrubs,mature trees)V]Early (herbaceous &seedlings ) Indicators : 0 Mudcracks0RipplesZ\Drift and/or debris0'^Presence of bed and bank Benches _]JSoil development Surface relief Other Other Other Comments: low FtCVMSfCCCCS \w UTrCeiAl l tlfVjIMCDFV{TFAr^^VH Ar tUt \JA'D O (so fefcNiVLv|S^PC \0 Date:Time:Cross section ID:Project ID:?{//' Cross section drawing: ^NJ t>\SJ TNA t-—y-^, 0-\j p l <\v\-o C.4UV*-\f^v C OHWM GPS point:D L c--:' M I -V2£>.kMvc Dt? Indicators: Change in average sediment texture3"Change in v’egetation species3Changeinvegetationcover Break in bank slope Other : Other : Comments:SHAUUDvV ,MW\ND-Lyi MO W (iM 6-L fdH SU)ptD BAM^S .OHANNVC ^B>\rM5 \)GGC 'UY\\_B wn>\RuDe £f \L l \‘j CoifcIC ^P-AS-Stk ^t \M|Mi/-l Lb . CH Active Floodplain Low TerraceFloodplainunit:n Low-Flow Channel GPS point:~ Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Average sediment texture: Total veg cover : Community successional stage: \,QC\KV'NA\'L L^M^5 %Tree:£-d>%Shrub:0 %Herb:2.5 % NA Mid (herbaceous,shrubs,saplings )HI Late (herbaceous,shrubs,mature trees)_Early (herbaceous &seedlings) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples 'Drift and/or debris ''Presence of bed and bank Benches Soil development Surface relief Other :SCCt u<f Other: Other: V’ Comments:uw X\OVA £HV\NNTtl ,IMIADT?!ATt ^i D UbJ &ygL XX CAM )MO RIAL .CKAMMTT \J VAIITH •HUc'BiACC'CU ^j A Str^but lA ^\TM.V2ct \}J \L COwvJ {S fDPUD Q VTXTt or ex'COLLLEcT vi CM Ait b Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California APPENDIX D: Representative Site Photographs T E R R A •V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 1. View southwest of ephemeral drainage bisecting the proposed development area. Photo 2. View northeast of the existing culvert under Viejo Camino. < T E R R A -V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 3. View northwest toward existing structure at the northern property boundary. Photo 4. View north of the ephemeral drainage with evidence of scour, just upstream of the culvert under Viejo Camino. V T E R R A -V E R D E Environmental Consulting Dove Creek Self-storage Development Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 5. View west of the existing culvert under El Camino Real. Photo 6. Soil plug excavated at SP-02 during the wetland delineation. T E R R A -V E R D E Environmental Consulting Attachment 3: Cultural Study Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California Philip Clarkson, Amber Long, and Anna Hoover Prepared By Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared For Newton Development 215 Santa Fe Pismo Beach, CA 93449 August 2020 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development iii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY At the request of Newton Development, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a cultural resource study at 11450 Viejo Camino, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 045-342-009 and 045-342-010, in Atascadero, California. The 4.34-acre parcel is considered the project Area of Potential Effects (project APE). Newton Development is proposing the realignment of an unnamed tributary of Paloma Creek which requires a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project is therefore considered a “federal undertaking” subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800. It is also subject to compliance review under the California Environmental Quality Act, which mandates that government agencies consider the effects of permitted actions on important archaeological and historical resources (Public Resource Code 5020 and 21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.). Æ’s cultural resource study included a records search of the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), outreach to the Native American Heritage Commission and local Native American tribal representatives, and a pedestrian surface survey. The research results found a previous Environmental Impact Report that covered the project APE and 10 previous cultural resource studies that have been conducted within a 0.25-mile search radius. No previously recorded cultural resources or historic properties have been mapped within the project APE; however, one previously recorded resource, CA-SLO-1892H; the Dove Cemetery, is approximately 0.25-miles southeast of the project APE. As part of this study Ӕ contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a search of their Sacred Lands File, sent letters to local Native American representatives, and followed up via email and phone calls. Fredrick Segobia of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties requested a Native American monitor during construction. Representatives of the Xolon-Salinan Tribe and the yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini Northern Chumash stated that they would send comments later. No further communication was received. Æ Staff Archaeologist Philip Clarkson completed a pedestrian survey of the project APE on December 3, 2019. Clarkson examined the ground by walking linear transects spaced no more than 5-meters apart, paying special attention to rodent burrow push piles for evidence of subsurface deposits. Surface visibility varied across the project APE from approximately 75 percent in areas that had been mowed of surface vegetation, approximately 20 percent in areas that had moderately dense seasonal grasses and yellow star thistle, to 0 ground surface visibility in areas with very dense yellow star thistles. Approximately 0.30-acres in the southern-most portion of the project APE was not surveyed due to very dense yellow star thistle preventing access to the area. No cultural resources or historic properties were identified within the project APE during the survey. iv Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development As a result of the records search, Native American outreach, and field survey, no historic properties or archaeological resources were identified within the project APE. A single-family residence is in the project APE but is less than 50 years old and not part of the scope of the study. No further studies or actions are recommended. There is always the potential for encountering prehistoric or historic-era materials during ground-disturbing activities. If cultural materials are encountered during ground-disturbing work, it is recommended that all work within 50 feet of the find is halted until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the finds and make further recommendations. Research materials and information from the current investigation are on file at Æ’s office in San Luis Obispo, California. A copy of the final version of this report will be submitted to the CCIC of the California Historic Resources Information System at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development v CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION ..........................................................................1 1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................1 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION ...................................................................................1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT ...................................................7 2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................7 2.2 PREHISTORY .........................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Paleo-Indian Period (Pre-10,000 cal B.P.) ...................................................8 2.2.2 Early Archaic Period (10,000-5500 cal B.P.) ..............................................8 2.2.3 Early Period (5500-2600 cal B.P.) ...............................................................9 2.2.4 Middle Period (2600-950 cal B.P.) ..............................................................9 2.2.5 Middle-Late Transition Period (950-700 cal B.P.) ......................................9 2.2.6 Late Period (700 cal B.P.-Historic)............................................................10 2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY..................................................................................................10 2.4 HISTORY ..............................................................................................................12 3 METHODS .......................................................................................................................15 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH ............................................................................................15 3.2 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION ......................................................15 3.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INSPECTION ..........................................15 4 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................17 4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS ..........................................................................17 4.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES ........................................................18 4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION ......................................................18 4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSPECTION ..................................................................19 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................23 5.1 STUDY RESULTS ................................................................................................23 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................23 5.2.1 Inadvertent Discoveries .............................................................................23 5.2.2 Human Remains .........................................................................................24 6 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................25 APPENDICES A Records Search B Native American Communication vi Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development FIGURES 1-1 Project vicinity in San Luis Obispo County, California. .....................................................3 1-2 Project Area of Potential Effects on the Atascadero 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. .....................................................................................................................4 1-3 Aerial view of the project Area of Potential Effects. ...........................................................5 4-1 Project overview, facing south. Residence in right foreground. ........................................20 4-2 Area not surveyed due to dense yellow star thistle, facing south. .....................................20 4-3 Aerial view of survey coverage. ........................................................................................21 TABLES 2-1 Regional Chronology of the Central Coast................................................................................7 4-1 Previous Cultural Resource Studies within 0.25 mile of the Project APE ..............................17 4-2 Native American Communication Results ..............................................................................18 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 1 1 INTRODUCTION At the request of Newton Development, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (Æ) completed a cultural resource study at 11450 Viejo Camino, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 045-342-009 and 045-342-010 in the city of Atascadero (City), San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1-1). The 4.34-acre parcel is between Viejo Camino to the north and El Camino Real to the south, in an unsectioned portion of the Atascadero Rancho within Township 28 South, Range 12 East, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Atascadero 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figures 1-2). 1.1 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION Newton Development proposes to realign a portion of an unnamed tributary of Paloma Creek in support of potential future development of the parcel. The tributary is an ephemeral blue-line creek which meets Paloma Creek to the northeast and drains into the Salinas River. The tributary is considered a jurisdictional “waters of the United States” and the proposed realignment of the creek requires a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Due to the requirement for Federal permits, the project is considered a “federal undertaking” and is subject to the requirement of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800. The project will also require permits from the City for any future proposed development and is therefore also subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A single-family residence shaped like a geodesic dome is on the parcel but is less than 50 years old and not in the scope of the current study. Although no development is proposed at this time, Ӕ surveyed the full 4.34-acre parcel to determine whether historic properties and archaeological resources exist within the parcel. The entire parcel is considered the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) (Figure 1-3). 1.2 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS Æ Principal Archaeologist Erin Enright (M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist [RPA] 16575) served as principal investigator and provided technical review of this document. Æ Senior Architectural Historian Amber Long (M.A.) served as project manager. Æ Senior Archaeologist Anna Hoover (M.S., RPA 28576661) reviewed and contributed to this report. Æ Staff Archaeologist Philip Clarkson (B.A.) conducted the archaeological field survey, performed a records search at the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF), communicated with Native American representatives, and authored the report. 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report was prepared in accordance with Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Contents and Format published by the California Office of Historic Preservation (Office of Historic Preservation 1990). This document consists of six chapters. Following this 2 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development introduction, Chapter 2 describes the environmental and cultural setting of the project APE. Chapter 3 presents Æ’s methods for the study, including background research and field investigations. Results of the research and archaeological investigations are discussed in Chapter 4, while Chapter 5 contains a summary and recommendations. A complete listing of references cited is provided in Chapter 6. Appendix A presents the results of the records search and Appendix B contains the documentation of communication with the Native American Heritage Commission and local tribal representatives. Date: 7/28/2020Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - SLO GIS Projects\4113 Dove Creek P1\Projects\05 Deliverables\Figure 1-3\Figure 1-1_250k scale.mxd5 0 5Miles 5 0 5Kilometers 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000Feet ° Figure 1-1 Project vicinity in San Luis Obispo County, California. PROJECT APE PROJECTAPE 1:250,000SCALE 3 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 708 m I TAN A ORO ; ; ; Date: 7/28/2020Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - SLO GIS Projects\4113 Dove Creek P1\Projects\05 Deliverables\Figure 1-3\Figure 1-2.mxdCultural Resource Study for Newton Development 0.5 0 0.5 1Miles 0.5 0 0.5 1Kilometers 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000Feet Unsectioned Atascadero RanchoTownship 28 S /Range 12 EAtascadero (1953-PR1979), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle ° Figure 1-2 Project Area of Potential Effects on the Atascadero 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. PROJECT APE Project APE 4 1:24,000SCALE Date: 8/10/2020Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - SLO GIS Projects\4113 Dove Creek P1\Projects\05 Deliverables\Figure 1-3\Figure 1-3.mxdCultural Resource Study for Newton Development 0 50 100 150 200 250Meters 0 250 500 750 1,000Feet° Figure 1-3 Aerial view of the project Area of Potential Effects. Project APEPaloma CreekTributary 5 1:3,000SCALE Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community Viejo Cami n o El C a m i n o R e a l £¤101 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 7 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT 2.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The project APE lies inland in San Luis Obispo County, in the southern extent of the Coast Ranges geologic province. The Coast Ranges were formed by pressure between the North American and Pacific plates, which folded the North American Plate into a series of northwest- southeast trending ridges and valleys and raised the coastline (Pletka and Pletka 2004). Geology of the area includes Quaternary alluvium as well as lake, playa, and terrace deposits (California Geological Survey 2015). Soils in the project APE are of the Arbuckle-Positas Complex and are characterized as very deep, well drained soils, often on terraces, formed from sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Rock fragments are predominately quartz and chert. Slopes range from 0 to 75 percent. The project APE is in Atascadero in northern San Luis Obispo County, and includes one residential lot and one vacant lot with a documented wetland. Local vegetation traditionally consists of riparian vegetation and oak woodlands. The local Mediterranean climate is typically warm and dry in the summer, and cool and wet in the winter. Most of the area’s rivers, creeks, and streams remain dry during the summer months. Average inland temperatures range from 37 to 88 degrees Fahrenheit with July and August averaging the warmest months and December the coldest. Winter rain, occurring between November and March, is the largest contributor to the regions water table. February is usually the wettest month. Mean annual precipitation near the project APE is 19 inches (BestPlaces 2019). 2.2 PREHISTORY Early attempts at regional cultural chronology by Rogers (1929) and Olson (1930) divided prehistory into three periods. However, extensive archaeological studies since then and development of more precise dating methods have allowed many refinements to the San Luis Obispo cultural sequences. Currently, the most common chronological system—based on work by Erlandson and Colten (1991), Jones and Ferneau (2002), Jones et al. (2007), King (1990), and Jones et al. (2015)—divides Central Coast prehistory into six periods (Table 2-1). Table 2-1 Regional Chronology of the Central Coast Period Years B.C./A.D. Calibrated Years B.P. Paleo-Indian pre-8000 B.C. pre-10,000 Early Archaic 8000–3500 B.C. 10,000–5500 B.P. Early 3500–600 B.C. 5500–2600 B.P. Middle 600 B.C.–A.D. 1000 2600–950 B.P. Middle-Late Transition A.D. 1000–1250 950–700 B.P. Late A.D. 1250–1769 700 B.P.–Historic 8 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 2.2.1 Paleo-Indian Period (Pre-10,000 cal B.P.) The Paleo-Indian Period represents the earliest human occupations in the region, which began prior to 10,000 years ago. Paleo-Indian sites throughout North America are known by the representative fluted projectile points, crescents, and large bifaces used as tools as well as flake cores and a distinctive assemblage of small flake tools. Only three fluted points have been reported from Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, and all are isolated occurrences unassociated with larger assemblages of tools or debris (Erlandson et al. 1987; Gibson 1996; Mills et al. 2005). More evidence of Paleo-Indian sites on the mainland is slowly being discovered, however, and recent work on Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) uncovered a late Paleo-Indian site (CA-SBA-1547) with a robust artifact assemblage (Lebow et al. 2015). Data recovery work at this location has documented a dense single-component shell midden dating to approximately 10,725 calibrated years before present (cal B.P). Data from this site, also known as the Sudden Flats Site, point to an early culture that utilized a unique tool assemblage exhibiting traits derived from Alaska/Beringia (Lebow et al. 2015). Interestingly, early sites on San Miguel and Santa Rosa islands have yielded numerous radiocarbon dates of older Paleo-Indian age than the Sudden Flats Site. Additionally, these sites do not contain fluted points or other notable artifacts typically associated with Paleo-Indian adaptations (Agenbroad et al. 2005; Erlandson et al. 1996). Nonetheless, both offshore and mainland sites provide clear evidence of watercraft use by California’s earliest colonizers, offering tantalizing evidence of pre-Clovis occupations. Overall, inhabitants of the Central Coast during the Paleo-Indian Period are thought to have lived in small groups with a relatively egalitarian social organization and a forager-type land-use strategy (Erlandson 1994; Glassow 1996; Greenwood 1972; Moratto 1984). 2.2.2 Early Archaic Period (10,000-5500 cal B.P.) Additional evidence of human occupation has been found at sites dating to the Early Archaic. A growing number of Early Archaic, components have been identified, most located in coastal or pericoastal settings. Two such components, at CA-SLO-2 (Diablo Canyon) and CA-SLO-1797 (the Cross Creek Site), are radiocarbon dated between 10,300 and 8500 cal B.P., providing the earliest evidence for the widespread California Milling Stone adaptive pattern (Greenwood 1972; Jones et al. 2008). The most common artifacts in these assemblages are the eponymous milling slabs and handstones used to grind hard seeds and process other foodstuffs. Choppers, core tools, and large bifaces also are common, while side-notched dart points, pitted stones, simple bone awls, bipointed bone gorges, and possible eccentric crescents occur in lesser frequencies. Population density likely remained low, although settlements may have been semipermanent. Subsistence activities appeared to be aimed broadly at a diverse spectrum of terrestrial and marine resources. During this time, people appear to have subsisted largely on plants, shellfish, and some vertebrate species using a seemingly simple and limited tool technology. Sites of this age are notable for the prevalence of handstones and milling slabs and less abundant flaked tools and projectile points (Jones et al. 2007). Archaeological components from central California show substantial regional variability. Differences in site location, artifact assemblages, and faunal remains suggest that populations were beginning to establish settlements tethered to the unique Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 9 characteristics of the local environment and adopt subsistence practices responsive to local conditions. Obsidian from several of these components originated on the east side of the Sierra Nevada, suggesting that long-distance trade networks were also established during this era. Glassow (1990, 1996) infers that occupants of sites in the Vandenberg area during this time were sedentary and had begun using a collector-type (i.e., logistically mobile) land-use strategy; however, others have argued for a broader and less permanent subsistence base as overexploitation of coastal resources pushed human residents towards the interior (Jones and Richman 1995). 2.2.3 Early Period (5500-2600 cal B.P.) An important adaptive transition occurred along the Central Coast around 5500 cal B.P. (Jones et al. 2007; Price et al. 2012). Technological changes marking the transition into the Early Period include an abundance of contracting-stemmed, Rossi square-stemmed, large side-notched, and other large projectile points (Jones et al. 2007:138). Mortars and pestles were introduced and gradually replaced manos and milling slabs as the primary plant processing tools, indicating expansion of the subsistence base to include acorns (Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988). Shell beads and obsidian materials indicate that trade between regions expanded (Jones et al. 1994). Site occupants appear more settled with more limited mobility, and they increasingly used sites for resource procurement activities such as hunting, fishing, and plant material processing (Jones et al. 1994:62; Jones and Waugh 1995:132). Farquhar et al. (2011:14) argue that cultural changes during this period are the result of population circumscription and economic intensification. Echoing Rogers (1929), Price et al. (2012:36–37) suggest such constraints might have been prompted by the arrival of new populations or adoption of new social norms in the region. 2.2.4 Middle Period (2600-950 cal B.P.) The Middle Period is defined by continued specialization in resource exploitation and increased technological complexity. Contracting-stemmed points still existed, while square-stemmed and large side-notched variants disappeared (Rogers 1929). The use of mortars and pestles also increased. Additionally, expansion of trade is evident in the increased quantity of obsidian, beads, and sea otter bones (Farquhar et al. 2011:15). Circular shell fishhooks, which facilitated an increase in exploitation of fishes, appeared for the first time (Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988). The appearance of small leaf-shaped projectile points toward the end of the period is evidence for the arrival of bow and arrow technology (Jones et al. 2007:139). 2.2.5 Middle-Late Transition Period (950-700 cal B.P.) The Middle-Late Transitional Period represents a rapid change in artifact assemblages as large numbers of arrow points appeared and most stemmed points disappeared (Jones et al. 2007:139). Hopper mortars also made their first entry in the archaeological record (Farquhar et al. 2011:16). At the same time, some evidence points to population decline and interregional trade collapse. Obsidian is not found in sites dating to this period (Jones et al. 1994). Settlement shifted away from the coast and people relocated to more interior settings (Jones 1995:215). Marine resources appear to have been largely dropped from the diet, and instead people relied more on terrestrial resources such as small mammals and acorns (Farquhar et al. 2011:16). These changes may have been caused by an environmental shift that increased sea and air temperatures, resulting in 10 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development decreased precipitation and overexploitation of resources (Arnold 1992; Graumlich 1993; Kennett et al. 1997; Pisias 1978; Stine 1990). At the same time, it appears that social complexity became more noticeable during the transition between the Middle and Late periods. It is during this time that craft specialization and social ranking developed (Arnold 1992). The tomol (plank canoe), which was utilized by the Chumash south of Point Conception where ocean conditions were more favorable, allowed for a greater reliance on marine resources, particularly fish, for food. However, these changes are again more noticeable south of Point Conception, and may have been due, in part, to environmental changes occurring at that time. 2.2.6 Late Period (700 cal B.P.-Historic) Populations on the Central Coast expanded in the Late Period (Farquhar et al. 2011:17; Glassow 1996). More sites were occupied during this period than ever before (Jones et al. 2007:143). It appears that the inhabitants of the Central Coast used a range of subsistence strategies depending on the available local ecology. Some studies have found that Late Period residents did not increase maritime subsistence activities but instead continued to demonstrate a terrestrial focus with occasional forays to the coastal zone to procure marine products (Farquhar et al. 2011:17; Jones et al. 2007:140; Price 2005; Price et al. 1997:4.13–14.14). However, archaeological investigations at Late Period coastal sites along the Central Coast show evidence of intensification of marine resource use and overall expansion of the subsistence base (Codding et al. 2013; Enright 2010; Joslin 2010; Moratto et al. 2009). Analysis of assemblages from two Late Period sites on the San Simeon Reef (Joslin 2010) and excavations at Tom’s Pond (CA-SLO-1366/H) on the Pecho Coast (Codding et al. 2013) demonstrate that some human populations responded to climate shifts and associated impacts to terrestrial faunal communities with an increased use of the marine subsistence base. This same trend is visible to the south, along the Vandenberg AFB coast where analysis of faunal assemblages from CA-SBA-694 and -695 found that Late Period inhabitants used coastal sites as camps for exploitation of marine resources, especially shellfish and fish (Enright 2010; Moratto et al. 2009). Artifact assemblages from the Late Period within San Luis Obispo County contain an abundance of arrow points, small bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, and a variety of bead types (Price 2005). More shell and stone beads appeared in the Late Period and became a more standardized and common form of exchange (Jones et al. 2007:140, 145). The use of handstones and milling slabs continued during this period, but pestles and mortars occurred in greater proportions (Jones and Waugh 1995:121). There are few records of Spanish encounters with the Chumash north of Point Conception (Glassow 1990). However, in San Luis Obispo County it appears that the absence of the tomol and a lower population density contributed to a different social and political organization than their neighbors to the south. Moreover, the absence of imported obsidian after 900 cal B.P. suggests a change in trade relationships that is likely associated with the shift in settlement patterns (Jones et al. 1994). 2.3 ETHNOGRAPHY The project APE is within the traditional territorial ranges of both the Salinan and Chumash people (Hester 1978; Jones et al. 2007). A hunting and gathering people, the Salinans were Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 11 separated into northern and southern groups. Northern Salinans, or Antoniaños, were associated with the populations around Mission San Antonio de Padua. The southern group, or Migueleños, were associated with the populations around Mission San Miguel Archángel. The territories of both Salinan groups extended east into the interior of the Coast Range, where they met Chumash and Yokuts territory. The Salinan language is a classificatory isolate of the Hokan linguistic group (Golla 2011:114). The Northern Chumash occupied land along the Pacific coast from the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero and east to the edge of the San Joaquin Valley. The Chumash people lived in large villages along the Santa Barbara Channel coast, with less dense populations in the interior regions, on the Channel Islands, and in coastal areas north of Point Conception. Both Salinan and Northern Chumash subsistence was focused on fishing, hunting, and gathering native plants, particularly acorns, although many animals and dozens of plants were used for food (Hester 1978:501). Marine shellfish was an important source of nourishment, and both men and women shared in the task of gathering (Greengo 1952). Fishing also had a division of labor along gender lines. Men would weave the fishing nets and catch the fish, while women would process the catch. A variety of mammals were hunted, including bear, rabbit, and deer. The meat was roasted, baked, boiled, or dried. Cooking baskets and earth ovens were used in food preparation. Vegetal foods, especially acorns, provided the bulk of the diet. Acorns were stored in large willow-twig granaries until needed, then ground with a stone mortar and pestle. The tannic acid in the acorn meal was leached out with water, and the result was cooked into a gruel. Other important plant foods included wild grass and sage seeds, berries, mescal, and wild fruits and berries. Animals and birds were captured with snares, traps, spears, and the bow and arrow. Stone, bone, wood, and shell provided materials for tool production (Hester 1978:501). Stone tools were manufactured from locally available chert as well as imported obsidian, and debris from their manufacture and maintenance are most likely to be seen in an archaeological context. Pecked and ground stone objects include bowl mortars, pestles, metates, basket mortars, stone bowls, notched pebble net sinkers, and steatite arrow shaft straighteners. Ornaments are made of steatite and serpentine. Bone and shell tools were also manufactured, especially bone awls and C-shaped fishhooks. Shell beads of olive snail, mussel, abalone, and other species were the basis of the native “currency,” with value being assigned based on the color of the shell and other factors (Hester 1978:502). The Salinan and Chumash people were on good terms with the Yokuts to the east, especially those residing on the shore of Tulare Lake. They would regularly travel inland to fish and hunt fowl, and the Yokuts, in kind, would venture westward to obtain littoral resources. Trade was extensive; the Yokuts received shell beads, unworked shells, and other marine resources, while the Chumash and Salinans received saltgrass salt, obsidian, seeds, lake fish, and tanned antelope and deer skins (Baldwin 1971). The Salinans obtained univalve shell ornaments, wooden dishes, and steatite vessels from the Chumash (Hester 1978:500). 12 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 2.4 HISTORY The first Europeans the Chumash encountered were Spanish explorers in the sixteenth century. In 1587, Pedro de Unamuno landed his ship in Morro Bay and explored inland to San Luis Obispo. The Gaspar de Portolá expedition likely passed through Oceano in 1769, and Juan Bautista de Anza followed practically the same route as Portolá in 1774 and 1776 (Hoover et al. 1990:359). Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772 by Padre Junipero Serra. The site was selected for its level lands and “two little arroyos which contained water with sufficient lands that with little trouble . . . could be irrigated from them” (Palóu 1926). Father Joseph Caveller quickly constructed a small wooden chapel that also served as a shelter. In 1774, a more permanent church with adobe foundations and a superstructure of shaved limbs and tules was erected. In 1776, Northern Chumash damaged the mission buildings by shooting burning arrows into the roofs thatched with tule (Hoover et al. 1990:360). An adobe church replaced the original chapel in 1794. The native population declined rapidly. In 1803 there was a peak of 919 Native Americans residing at the mission, but by 1838 the population had declined to 170. According to the Roll of 1928 compiled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, only four Native Americans living at the time claimed to be survivors of San Luis Obispo Mission Indians (Greenwood 1978:521). Mission San Antonio de Padua was founded in 1771, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772, and Mission San Miguel Archangel in 1797. In the 1790s, an auxiliary rancho with more than 17,000 acres of prime farm land was established at Santa Margarita (Krieger 1988). Mission San Miguel was founded by Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. Mission lands extended north near San Ardo, east to Corcoran, south to Atascadero, and west to the coast (Ohles 1997). Together the missions produced an impressive quantity and variety of goods. In 1805, 19 missions held a quarter-million head of livestock, including 130,000 sheep, 95,000 cattle, 21,000 horses, 1,000 mules, 800 pigs, and 120 goats (Hackel 1998:116). Productivity increased into the late 1810s and 1820s when the numbers reached their peak levels for most missions (Engelhardt 1915:531). The most important commercial commodity was cattle. Hides and tallow were exported to merchant ships that came to call along the California coast during the first part of the 1800s. Along with livestock, the missions produced over 4 million bushels of wheat, corn, barley, beans, peas, lentils, and chick-peas in the period between 1783–1832 (Engelhardt 1915:535). California became a Mexican territory in 1822. Unlike their Spanish predecessors, the Mexican authorities opened California to foreign trade and immigration. The beneficiaries of this policy were predominantly the missions, which could legally expand their hide and tallow trade to foreign merchants (Hackel 1998). The Colonization Act of 1824 and the Supplemental Regulations of 1828 afforded private individuals—both Mexican nationals and immigrants—the right to obtain title to land, although at that time mission lands were not available. Such immigrant-friendly laws directly contributed to the migration and eventual permanent presence of Anglo-Americans in California. The Secularization Act of 1833 officially ended the church’s monopoly on prime California lands and redistributed the mission estates to private individuals in the form of land grants. During the early and mid-1840s, the former mission lands of the county were carved up into large ranchos, each totaling several thousand acres (Krieger 1988:41- 43). Some of the recipients of these Mexican land grants were Yankee sea captains, including Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 13 William Dana and John Wilson, who had established themselves in the San Luis Obispo area in the previous decades. After the missions was secularized in 1835, mission lands were divided into land grants and influential families were given the largest grants (Morrison and Haydon 1917:35). The Bear Flag Revolt, which occurred in 1846, resulted in California’s independence from Mexico and control of the territory soon fell into the hands of the United States (Krieger 1988). Rancho owners soon discovered the need to defend their title in U.S. courts, a process that would last over a decade for some petitioners, pushing many into financial hardship. When California achieved statehood in 1850, immigrants were mainly interested in the riches to be found in the gold fields of the Sierra Nevada. Newcomers were able to find some semblance of the culture they left behind in the northern part of the state and the San Francisco Bay area, but Southern California was seen as a wild, untamed country full of lawlessness. As a result, the population of newly formed San Luis Obispo County grew slowly. The 1850 census listed 336 residents, but ethnicity was not recorded. However, over 230 were born in California, suggesting Native American and/or Mexican heritage. Of the remainder, 55 were born in Mexico, 20 were born in America, and 26 were European immigrants. The population of the County would remain relatively unchanged throughout the 1850s when Henry Miller observed 150 houses in the area inhabited primarily by Native Americans and Mexicans (Miller 1985). The project APE is within a portion of the 39,225-acre Rancho Asuncion, which was associated with Mission San Miguel and was granted to Pedro Estrada in 1845 by Mexican Governor Pio Pico (Hoover et al. 1990). In 1851 the area was settled by Juan Araujo who founded the town of Dove. The town consisted of a train stop, general store, telephone store, schoolhouse, post office and cemetery. The area of Dove was included in the Atascadero Rancho that was purchased by E.G. Lewis in 1913 and eventually faded away as the city of Atascadero was developed (Allan 2019). E.G. Lewis envisioned a utopian society called the Atascadero Colony. As part of his vision he laid out vast orchards, established irrigation systems, subdivided large residential parcels and built Highway 41 West. Atascadero became the seventh incorporated city in San Luis Obispo County in 1979, when it was the second largest community in the county (Atascadero Historical Society 2019). Today Atascadero is the third largest city in the county with approximately 28,000 residents (City of Atascadero 2011). Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 15 3 METHODS Æ carried out several tasks to complete this study including a records search, a search of the NAHC’s SLF, and an archaeological pedestrian survey of the project APE. Methods for each task is described below. 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH On December 11, 2019, a records search was conducted by the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), housed at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Through an examination of maps, site records, and archaeological reports, the records search identified previous archaeological surveys conducted and cultural resources recorded within a 0.25-mile search radius of the project APE. The State Historic Property Data Files, National Register of Historic Places, National Register of Determined Eligible Properties, California Points of Historic Interest, California Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and Æ’s in-house files were reviewed (Appendix A). 3.2 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION Æ contacted the NAHC to determine whether any sites recorded in their SLF were in or near the project APE. On December 5, 2019, the NAHC supplied a list of Native American individuals and/or groups who have expressed interest in and knowledge about the area (Appendix B). Those included on the list were contacted by letter and telephone to request comments or information about the project APE (see Section 4.3). 3.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES INSPECTION Æ Staff Archaeologist Philip Clarkson completed a pedestrian survey of the project APE on December 3, 2019. Clarkson examined the ground by walking linear transects spaced no more than 5-meters apart, paying special attention to rodent burrow push piles for evidence of subsurface deposits. Disturbances were documented in the field with a survey area sketch, and digital photographs were taken with an iPhone 8, 12-megapixel camera. Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 17 4 FINDINGS 4.1 RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS The CCIC records search found one previous Environmental Impact Report (EIR: Quad Knopf 1999) that included the project APE; however, no cultural resource studies were completed as part of the EIR. One previous cultural resource study (Gibson 2000) included the southwestern boundary of the project APE. No previously recorded resources are within the project APE. Ten previous cultural resource studies and 1 resource are recorded within the 0.25-mile search radius of the project APE (Appendix A). The studies and EIR are listed in Table 4-1, and in Appendix A. Table 4-1 Records Search Results within 0.25 mile of the Project APE Report No. Date Author(s) Title Sl-00133 1977 Dills, C. Archaeological Potential of Proposed Property on San Diego Road, Atascadero SL-00626 1985 Singer, C. Letter Report, Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Bordeaux House Property in Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California SL-01523 1989 Dills, C. Archaeological Potential of La Paloma Estates, Atascadero SL-03464 1998 Singer, C. Cultural Resources Survey of a 69-acre Property Adjacent to Paloma Creek Near the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, California SL-03645 1999 Quad Knopf Inc. Environmental Impact Report for a Proposed Atascadero, Redevelopment Plan SL-04374 2000 Gibson, R. Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey for the El Camino Bike Lanes Project, Phase 1 and 3, Atascadero, California SL-04598 2002 Wilson, K. Cultural Resources Review, Side Gutter Installation Project on State Route 101 SL-06295 2008 Sewell, K. and Stanton, P. The Excavation and Interpretation of Dove Cemetery, CA-SLO-1892H, San Luis Obispo County, California SL-06509 2009 Kiaha, K. and MacDonald, C. Historic Property Survey Report-Atascadero Highway 101 Rehabilitation Project and attachments SL-06892 2014 Hudlow, S. A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey for Atascadero Family Apartments, City of Atascadero, California SL-07064 2014 Laurie, L. Results of the Supplemental Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for Six Additional Parcels at the Conscious Building Groves at Atascadero Development in Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California (SWCA #30137) Quad Knopf Inc. (1999) prepared an EIR in support of a redevelopment plan for the City that included the entire project APE; however, the EIR did not include a cultural resource study. Gibson (2000) conducted a Phase 1 survey for a proposed bike lane on El Camino Real, that included the southwest boundary of the project APE. The following studies covered areas immediately adjacent to the project APE. Singer (1985) conducted a Phase 1 survey at the Bordeaux House property across Viejo Camino to the north. Dills (1989) conducted a Phase 1 18 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development survey of La Paloma Estates, northeast and immediately adjacent to Singer’s survey. Singer (1998) conducted a Phase 1 survey of 69-acres adjacent to Paloma Creek, across El Camino Real, southwest of the project APE. Sewell and Stanton (2008) conducted excavations at CA-SLO-1892H, Dove Cemetery, 0.25-miles southeast of the project APE. 4.2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES There are no previously recorded cultural sites or historic properties within the project APE; however, one previously recorded site, CA-SLO-1892H, is 0.25-mile southeast of the project APE. CA-SLO-1892H is a small cemetery associated with the historic community of Dove that predates the founding of the Atascadero Colony. The site includes two broken headstones (Singer 1998). 4.3 NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNICATION The NAHC responded to Æ’s information request on December 5, 2019 noting that its search of the SLF for resources with proximity of the project APE was positive. The NAHC provided a contact list of interested Native American individuals and groups and suggested Æ contact them for additional information. Specifically, the NAHC indicated that the yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini (YTT), Northern Chumash, may have specific information about cultural resources in the area. Æ sent notification letters on December 5, 2019 to individuals on the NAHC list informing them of the nature and intent of the project and soliciting comments or concerns (Appendix B). Follow-up phones calls were initiated on December 18, 2019. Follow-up emails were sent when phone numbers were not provided. Table 4-2 identifies each individual or group contacted and provides responses to the request for information (Appendix B). Table 4-2 Native American Communication Results Name Tribe/Group Comments Raudel Banuelos Barbareno/Venturento Band of Mission Indians Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Voice message left December 18, 2019. Julie Tumamait- Stenslie Barbareno/Venturento Band of Mission Indians Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Voice message left December 18, 2019. Patrick Tumamait Barbareno/Venturento Band of Mission Indians Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Deferred to Mona Tucker via voice message December 9, 2019. Eleanor Arrellanes Barbareno/Venturento Band of Mission Indians Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Deferred to Mona Tucker during phone conversation December 18, 2019. Julio Quair Chumash Council of Bakersfield Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Email sent December 18, 2019. Gino Altamirano Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Email sent December 18, 2019. Fred Collins Northern Chumash Tribal Council Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Voice mail left December 18, 2019. Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 19 Table 4-2 (continued) Native American Communication Results Name Tribe/Group Comments Fredrick Segobia Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Requested construction monitoring during phone conversation December 16, 2019. Mark Vigil San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Called December 18, 2019, phone disconnected. No email address was provided. Kenneth Kahn Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Voice message left December 18, 2019. Email requesting no further consultation at this time received December 27, 2019. Karen White Xolon-Salinan Tribe Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Phone conversation December 16, 2019. White had not had time to review and would respond later. No further comment was received. Donna Haro Xolon-Salinan Tribe Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. No concerns were stated during phone conversation December 18, 2019. Mona Tucker yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini, Northern Chumash Notification letter sent December 5, 2019. Lorie Laguna, on Ms. Tuckers behalf December 12, 2019, requested more information and indicated a response later. No further comment was received. As a result of the Native American outreach process, Fredrick Segobia of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties requested a Native American monitor during construction. Karen White of the Xolon-Salinan Tribe and Lorie Laguna, on behalf of Mona Tucker from the YTT, stated they would send comments later. No additional comments were received. 4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSPECTION On December 3, 2019, Æ Staff Archaeologist Philip Clarkson conducted a pedestrian survey of the 4.34-acre project APE (Figure 4-1). Topographically, the northern portion of the parcel contains a slight rise, gently sloping southward to the tributary, dry at the time of survey, and an alluvial plain. Surface visibility varied across the project APE from approximately 75 percent in areas that had been mowed of surface vegetation, approximately 20 percent in areas that had moderately dense seasonal grasses and yellow star thistle, to 0 ground surface visibility in areas with very dense yellow star thistles (Figure 4-2). Approximately 0.30-acres in the southern-most portion of the project APE was not surveyed due to very dense yellow star thistle preventing access to the area (Figure 4-3). The single-family residence was observed in the field but assessment of the residence was not within the scope of the study. No cultural resources or historic properties were identified within the project APE during the survey. 20 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development Figure 4-1 Project overview, facing south. Residence in right foreground. Figure 4-2 Area not surveyed due to dense yellow star thistle, facing south. Date: 7/28/2020Document Path: Z:\Shared\GIS\00 - SLO GIS Projects\4113 Dove Creek P1\Projects\05 Deliverables\Figure 1-3\Figure 1-3.mxdCultural Resource Study for Newton Development 0 50 100 150 200 250 Meters 0 250 500 750 1,000 Feet° Figure 4-3 Aerial view of survey coverage. Survey Area Project APE 21 1:3,000SCALE Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Viejo C a m i n o E l C am i n o R e a l £¤101 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 23 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Æ completed a cultural resource study at 1145 Viejo Camino (APNs 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) in the city of Atascadero, California. Newton Development is proposing realignment of an unnamed tributary of Paloma Creek that requires a Section 404 permit from the USACE and CEQA approvals from the City for future development. No specific development has been identified at this time. 5.1 STUDY RESULTS Æ’s study included defining the project APE, a records search of the CCIC and the SLF of the NAHC, outreach to local Native American tribal representatives, and a pedestrian surface survey of the project APE. Record search results indicate that an EIR was prepared that included the entirety of project APE; however, no cultural resource study was completed as part of the EIR. One previous cultural resource study included the southwest boundary of the project APE. No previously recorded cultural resources or historic properties are mapped within the project APE; however, one previously recorded resource, CA-SLO-1892H; the Dove Cemetery, is approximately 0.25-miles south of the project APE. Ten cultural resource studies were previously conducted within the 0.25-mile search radius. Tribal representatives listed on the NAHC contact list were sent letters and contacted separately via telephone or email. Fredrick Segobia of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties requested a Native American monitor during construction. Representatives of the Xolon-Salinan Tribe and the YTT stated they would send comments later, but no further comments were received. Ӕ conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of all accessible areas of the 4.34-acre project APE. Surface visibility varied across the project APE from 75 percent in areas that had been recently mowed to 0 percent visibility in areas with very dense yellow star thistle which prevented access to approximately 0.30-acres. No cultural resources or historic properties were observed or recorded during the pedestrian survey. 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the records search, document review, Native American outreach, and field survey, no historic properties or archaeological resources were identified within the project APE. No further cultural resource studies or actions are recommended at this time. 5.2.1 Inadvertent Discoveries Due to limited ground visibility in some portions of the parcel, there is potential for encountering prehistoric or historic-era materials not identified during the current study. Prehistoric materials may include but are not limited to chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing fire-altered rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). 24 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, wood or adobe building foundations, corrals, and walls; filled wells or privies; mining features; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If any of these materials are found during construction, ground-disturbing activities should be halted within 50 feet of the find, and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to determine if the materials are isolated finds or part of a larger archaeological deposit. If a cultural resource or historic property is identified, then the resource should be evaluated for significance under the NHPA and CEQA and further treatment measures may be required. 5.2.2 Human Remains If human remains are discovered during project construction, work must stop at the discovery location and any nearby area suspected to contain human remains (PRC 7050.5). The San Luis Obispo Coroner must be contacted to determine whether the cause of death should be investigated. If the coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, it is necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC 5097). The coroner will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will contact the most likely descendant(s) who will be afforded the opportunity to recommend means for treatment of the human remains following protocols in PRC 5097.98. Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 25 6 REFERENCES Agenbroad, Larry D., John R. Johnson, Don Morris, and Thomas W. Stafford, Jr. 2005 Mammoths and Humans as Late Pleistocene Contemporaries on Santa Rosa Island. Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium:3–7. Institute for Wildlife Studies. Allan, Lon 2019 Dove Predates the Community of Atascadero, Santa Margarita Historic Society. https://santamargaritahistoricalsociety.org/dove, accessed December 17, 2019. Arnold, Jeanne E. 1992 Complex Hunter-Gatherer-Fishers of Prehistoric California: Chiefs, Specialists, and Maritime Adaptations of the Channel Islands. American Antiquity 57:60–84. Atascadero Historical Society 2019 History of Atascadero http://www.atascaderohistoricalsociety.org/history.php, accessed December 21, 2019. Baldwin, Mary A. 1971 Culture Continuity from Chumash to Salinan Indians in California Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, California. BestPlaces 2019 Climate in Atascadero, California https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/ california/atascadero, accessed, December 4, 2019. California Geological Survey 2015 Geological Map of California, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/GMC/ stategeologicmap.html, accessed July 10, 2018. State of California Department of Conservation. City of Atascadero 2011 History. http://www.atascadero.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemi d=705, accessed August 10, 2020. Codding, Brian F., Terry L. Jones, Roshanne S. Bakhtiary, Samantha Law, Judith F. Porcasi, and Ken Gobalet 2013 Archaeological Investigations at Tom’s Pond (CA-SLO-1366/H), Diablo Canyon Lands, San Luis Obispo County, California: Final Report of the 2011 Cal Poly Field School and Mitigation Program. Submitted to California Polytechnic State University Corporation, San Luis Obispo, California. 26 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development Dills, Charles E. 1989 Archaeological Potential of La Paloma Estates, Atascadero. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara. Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1915 General History. In The Missions and Missionaries of California. Upper California, Vol. IV, Part 3. James H. Barry, San Francisco, California. Enright, Erin A. 2010 Prehistoric Coastal Adaptations at CA-SBA-694, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Riverside. Erlandson, Jon M. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Erlandson, Jon M., and Roger H. Colten (editors) 1991 Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Perspectives in California Archaeology. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore G. Cooley, and Richard Carrico 1987 A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronology and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9:120–128. Erlandson, Jon M., Douglas J. Kennett, Lynn Ingram, Daniel A. Guthrie, Don P. Morris, Mark A. Tveskov, G. James West, and Phillip L. Walker 1996 An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38(2):355–373. Farquhar, Jennifer, Ryan Brady, Tom Garlinghouse, and John Ellison 2011 Archaeological Investigations for the Nacimiento Water Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to Albion Environmental Inc., Santa Cruz, California. Gibson, Robert O. 1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring for Unocal Soil Testing Program along Pipelines near Santa Margarita, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to Gibson’s Archaeological Consulting, Paso Robles, California. 2000 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey for the El Camino Bike Lanes Project, Phase 1 and 3, Atascadero, California. Submitted to Gibson's Archaeological Consulting. Glassow, Michael A. 1990 Archaeological Investigations on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Connection with the Development of Space Transportation System Facilities. Submitted to Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 27 1996 Purisimeño Chumash Prehistory: Maritime Adaptations along the Southern California Coast. Case Studies in Archaeology. Harcourt Brace College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas. Glassow, Michael A., and Larry R. Wilcoxon 1988 Coastal Adaptations near Point Conception, California, with Particular Regard to Shellfish Exploitation. American Antiquity 53:36–51. Golla, Victor 2011 California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Graumlich, Lisa J. 1993 A 1000-Year Record of Temperature and Precipitation in the Sierra Nevada. Quaternary Research 39(2):249-255. Greengo, Robert E. 1952 Shellfish Foods of the California Indians. In Kroeber Anthropological Society Paper, pp. 63–114. Vol. No. 7, Berkeley, California. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. In San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper. Vol. No. 7, San Luis Obispo, California. 1978 Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 520–523. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hackel, Steven W. 1998 Land, Labor, and Production: The Colonial Economy of Spanish and Mexican California. In Contested Eden: California before the Gold Rush, edited by Ramón A. Gutiérrez, and Richard J. Orsi, pp. 111–146. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hester, Thomas R. 1978 Salinan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 499–504. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 1990 Historic Spots in California. 4th ed. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Originally published Revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Jones, Deborah, Terry Jones, William Hildebrandt, Patricia Mikkelsen, and Kacey Hadick 2015 Archaeological Investigations for the Los Osos Wastewater Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to Far Western Archaeological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. 28 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development Jones, Terry L. 1995 Transitions in Prehistoric Diet, Mobility, Exchange, and Social Organization along California’s Big Sur Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis (UMI Publication No. AAT 9543922). Jones, Terry L., Kathleen Davis, Glenn Farris, Steven D. Grantham, Teresa W. Fung, and Betty Rivers 1994 Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, Environmental Branch, San Luis Obispo. Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau 2002 Deintensification along the Central Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson, and Terry L. Jones, pp. 205–232. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Judith F. Porcasi 2008 The Cross Creek-Diablo Canyon Complex of South Central California: Mid-latitude Foragers at the Pleistocene-Holocene Boundary. North Pacific Prehistory 2:169–202. Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer R. Richman 1995 On Mussels: Mytilus Californianus as a Prehistoric Resource. North American Archaeologist 16:33–58. Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema 2007 The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones, and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 125– 146. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Jones, Terry L., and Georgie Waugh (editors) 1995 Central California Coastal Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology. Vol 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Joslin, Terry, L. 2010 Middle and Late Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations to Coastal Ecosystems along the Southern San Simeon Reef, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Kennett, Douglas J., B. Lynn Ingram, Jon M. Erlandson, and Phillip Walker 1997 Evidence for Temporal Fluctuations in Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Ages in the Santa Barbara Channel, Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(11):1051–1059. Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 29 King, Chester D. 1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804. Garland, New York. Krieger, Daniel E. 1988 Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom: San Luis Obispo County. 1st ed. Windsor Publications, Northridge, California. Lebow, Clayton G., Douglas R. Harro, Rebecca L. McKim, Charles M. Hodges, Ann M. Munns, Erin A. Enright, and Leeann G. Haslouer 2015 The Sudden Flats Site: A Pleistocene/Holocene Transition Shell Midden on Alta California’s Central Coast. California Archaeology 7:265–294. Miller, Henry 1985 Account of a Tour of the California Missions, 1856. In Mission in the Valley of the Bears, edited by Francis J. Weber, pp. 40–41. Libra Press, Hong Kong. Mills, William, Michael Rondeau, and Terry L. Jones 2005 A Fluted Projectile Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25:68–74. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Moratto, Michael J., Clayton G. Lebow, Erin A. Enright, Robert R. Peterson, Jr., Leeann G. Haslouer, Douglas R. Harro, and Ann M. Munns 2009 Prehistoric Coastal Adaptation at CA-SBA-694 and CA-SBA-695 near Purisima Point, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California. Submitted to 30th Civil Engineer Squadron, Environmental Flight Cultural Resources Section (30 CES/CEVNC), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Copies available from Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Morrison, Annie L., and John H. Haydon 1917 History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs, California: with Biographical Sketches of the Leading Men and Women of the County and Environs Who Have Been Identified with the Growth and Development of the Section from the Early Days to the Present. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, California. Office of Historic Preservation 1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. Submitted to California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. Ohles, Wallace V. 1997 The Lands of Mission San Miguel. Word Dancer Press, Fresno, California. 30 Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development Olson, Ronald L. 1930 Chumash Prehistory. In University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, pp. 1–22. Vol. 28. University of California Press, Berkeley. Palóu, Francisco 1926 Historical Memoirs of New California, by Fray Francisco Palóu, O.F.M. Herbert E. Bolton. Translated by Archives of Mexico. 4 vols. University of California Press, Berkeley. Pisias, Nicklas G. 1978 Paleoceanography of the Santa Barbara Basin during the Last 8000 Years. Quaternary Research 10(3):366–384. Pletka, Scott, and Nicole Pletka 2004 Proposal for CRHP Extended Phase I Survey and Phase II Test Excavations, Willow Road Extension Project, Community of Nipomo, County of San Luis Obispo, California. Submitted to LSA Associates, San Luis Obispo, California. Price, Barry A. 2005 Fashionably Late: Chronological and Cultural Definitions of the Late Period on the Central California Coast. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento. Price, Barry A., Sandra S. Flint, and Kham N. Slater 1997 Cultural Resource Monitoring and Emergency Archaeological Excavations for Segment 2 of the Chorro Valley Water Transmission Pipeline Project. Submitted to Prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Copies available from Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Price, Barry A., Ann M. Munns, Georgeanna Hawley, Terry L. Joslin, Douglas R. Harro, and Rebecca L. McKim 2012 A Slice of Time at Diablo Canyon: Archaeological Sampling at CA-SLO-61, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to Prepared for Terra Verde Environmental Consulting. Submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Copies available from Applied EarthWorks, Inc., San Luis Obispo, California. Quad Knopf, Inc. 1999 Environmental Impact Report for Proposed Atascadero Redevelopment Plan. On file, California Historical Resources Information System, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara. Rogers, David Banks 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast, California. In Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Special Publications. Vol. No. 1., Santa Barbara, California. Cultural Resource Study for Newton Development 31 Sewell, Kristen Sewell, and Patrick Stanton 2008 The Excavation and Interpretation of Dove Cemetery, CA-SLO-1892H, San Luis Obispo County, California. Submitted to Statistical Research, Inc. Singer, Clay 1985 Letter Report, Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Bordeaux House Property in Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California. 1998 Cultural Resources Survey of a 69-acre Property Adjacent to Paloma Creek Near the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, California. Stine, Scott 1990 Late Holocene Fluctuations of Mono Lake, Eastern California. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 78:333–381. APPENDIX A Cultural Resources Records Search 12/11/2019 Amber Long Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Dove Creek Storage Cultural Resource Study The Central Coast Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Atascadero USGS 7.5’ quad(s). The following reflects the results of the records search for the project area and a quarter mile radius: As indicated on the data request form, the locations of reports and resources are provided in the following format:  custom GIS maps ☐ shapefiles ☐ hand-drawn maps ☐ none Resources within project area: No resources were located within the project area Resources within ¼ mi. radius: P-40-001892 Reports within project area: SL-03645 and SL-04374 Reports within ¼ mi. radius: See report list Resource Database Printout (list):  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list):  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies:  enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☐ enclosed  not requested ☐ nothing listed OHP Historic Properties Directory: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested  nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested  nothing listed The following sources of information are available at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28065. Some of these resources used to be available through the CHRIS but because they are now online, they can be accessed directly. The Office of Historic Preservation makes no guarantees about the availability, completeness, or accuracy of the information provided through the sources listed below. California Archaeological Inventory Central Coast Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Santa Barbara,CA 93106-3210 (805)-893-2474 (805)-893-8707 cdc@anth.ucsb.edu SAN LUIS OBISPO AND\SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES PHONE b'AX EMAIL California State Lands Commission Shipwreck Database Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory U.S. Geological Survey Historic Topographic Maps Rancho Plat Maps National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Nominations Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey Maps US Bureau of Land Management General Land Office Records California Historical Landmarks Listing (by county) Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (1988) Historical Soil Survey Maps Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above. The provision of California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission. Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice. Thank you for using the CHRIS. Sincerely, Brian Barbier Coordinator Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SL-00133 1977 Archaeological Potential of Proposed Property on San Diego Road, Atascadero none givenDills, Charles SL-00626 1985 Letter Report, Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Bordeaux House Property in Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, CA None givenSinger, C. SL-01523 1989 Archaeological potential of La Paloma Estates, Atascadero Charles E. DillsDills, C. SL-03464 1998 Cultural resources survey of a 69 Acre property adjacent to Paloma Creek near the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, California C.A. Singer & AssociatesSinger, Clay SL-03645 1999 Environmental Impact Report for a Proposed Atascadero Redevelopment Plan Quad KnopfQuad Knopf SL-04374 2000 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey for the El Camino Bike Lanes Project, Phases 1 and 3, Atascadero, CA Gibson's Archaeological Consulting Gibson, Robert O. SL-04598 2002 Cultural Resources Review, Side Gutter Installation Project on State Route 101 Department of Transportation Wilson, Kelda SL-06295 2008 The Excavation and Interpretation of Dove Cemetary, CA-SLO-1892H, San Luis Obispo County, California Statistical Research, Inc.Sewell, Kristin J. and Stanton, Patrick B. 40-001892 SL-06509 2009 Historic Property Survey Report- Atascadero Highway 101 Rehabiliation Project California Department of Transportation Kiaha, Krista and MacDonald, Christina SL-06509A 2009 Archaeological Survey Report for the Atascadero Highway 101 Rehabilitation Project, San Luis Obispo County, California California Department of Transportaiton Christina MacDonald SL-06509B 2009 Attachment B: California Historic Bridge Inventory Sheet, Attachment C: Native American Correspondence, Attachment D: Historical Society Correspondence, Attachment E: ESA Action Plan VariousVarious SL-06892 2014 A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey For Atascedero Family Apartments, City of Atascedero, California Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates Hudlow, Scott M.40-041259 Page 1 of 2 CCoIC 12/11/2019 9:54:47 AM Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SL-07064 2014 Results of the Supplemental Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for Six Additional Parcels at the ConsciousBuild Groves at Atascadero Development in Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California (SWCA #30137) SWCALeroy Laurie SL-07064A 2014 Figures SWCANone Given SL-07418 Page 2 of 2 CCoIC 12/11/2019 9:54:47 AM SL-01523 SL-07064 SL-06295SL-06509 Dove Creek Storage Cultural Resource Study Customer Name: Amber Long, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Project Location: Atascadero Reports Map 1 of 5 Central Coast Information CenterDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, CA 93106-3210(805) 893-2474(805) 893-8707 FAX¤ 0 140 280 420 56070Meters Legend Project Location Quarter Mile Buffer SL-03645 Dove Creek Storage Cultural Resource Study Customer Name: Amber Long, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Project Location: Atascadero Reports Map 2 of 5 Central Coast Information CenterDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, CA 93106-3210(805) 893-2474(805) 893-8707 FAX¤ 0 140 280 420 56070Meters Legend Project Location Quarter Mile Buffer SL-00133 SL-03464 SL-00626 Dove Creek Storage Cultural Resource Study Customer Name: Amber Long, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Project Location: Atascadero Reports Map 3 of 5 Central Coast Information CenterDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, CA 93106-3210(805) 893-2474(805) 893-8707 FAX¤ 0 140 280 420 56070Meters Legend Project Location Quarter Mile Buffer SL-04374 Dove Creek Storage Cultural Resource Study Customer Name: Amber Long, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Project Location: Atascadero Reports Map 4 of 5 Central Coast Information CenterDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, CA 93106-3210(805) 893-2474(805) 893-8707 FAX¤ 0 140 280 420 56070Meters Legend Project Location Quarter Mile Buffer SL-04598 SL-06892 Dove Creek Storage Cultural Resource Study Customer Name: Amber Long, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Project Location: Atascadero Reports Map 5 of 5 Central Coast Information CenterDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, CA 93106-3210(805) 893-2474(805) 893-8707 FAX¤ 0 140 280 420 56070Meters Legend Project Location Quarter Mile Buffer Primary No.Trinomial Resource List Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by P-40-001892 CA-SLO-001892 Other - Dove Cemetery SL-06295SiteHistoricHP401998 (Clay Singer, C. A. Singer & Associates) Page 1 of 1 CCoIC 12/11/2019 8:37:37 AM P-40-001892 Dove Creek Storage Cultural Resource Study Customer Name: Amber Long, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Project Location: Atascadero Sites Map 1 of 1 Central Coast Information CenterDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, CA 93106-3210(805) 893-2474(805) 893-8707 FAX¤ 0 140 280 420 56070Meters Legend Project Location Quarter Mile Buffer APPENDIX B Native American Communication 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 O: (805) 594-1590 | F: (805) 594-1577 ARCHAEOLOGY CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT www.appliedearthworks.com November 27, 2019 Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Re: Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study for Dove Creek Self Storage in Atascadero, California. To Whom it May Concern: Applied EarthWorks, Inc. is conducting a cultural resource study for the development of two approximately two-acre adjoining parcels in Atascadero, California. The Project area is depicted on the attached copy of the Atascadero, CA 7.5’ Quadrangle Map and is within the unsectioned Atascadero Ranco, Township 28S, Range 12E. This letter is being submitted to formally request your agency to conduct a search of its Sacred Lands Inventory File. Your information will aid us in determining if any other cultural properties are present within the general vicinity of the proposed Project, thereby assisting us in our environmental analysis. In addition, we are requesting the names, addresses, and phone numbers of officially recognized tribal representatives in the Project area. Please fax the results to (805) 594-1577 and do not hesitate to call me at (805) 594-1590 if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Kelli Wathen, Staff Archaeologist Applied EarthWorks, Inc. AppliedEARTHWORKS te. 1 0 10.5 Miles 1 0 10.5 Kilometers 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Feet Unsectioned Atascadero Rancho Township 28 S /Range 12 EAtascadero (1950-PR2015), CA 7.5' USGS Quadrangle ° Location map for the Phase 1 Cultural Resource Stu dy for Dove Creek Self Storage in Atascadero, California - AE4113. Pro je ct Are a 1:24,00 0SCALE Date: 11/27/2019Document Path: Y:\Shared\GIS\00 - SLO GIS Projects\4113 Dove Creek P1\Projects\02 NA Consultation\NA Consult.mxdPRO JECT AREA STATE OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Cultural and Environmental Department 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone: (916) 373-3710 Email: nahc@nahc.ca.gov Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov December 5, 2019 Kelli Wathen Applied EarthWorks, Inc. VIA Email to: kwathen@appliedearthworks.com RE: Dove Creek Self Storage Project, San Luis Obispo County Dear Ms. Wathen: A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe on the attached list for more information. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Andrew.Green@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Andrew Green Staff Services Analyst Attachment v?Kmm /48 CX ^r^JUAT Barbareno/ Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Raudel Banuelos, 331 Mira Flores Camarillo, CA, 93012 Phone: (805) 427 - 0015 Chumash Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Julie Tumamait-Stenslie, Chairperson 365 North Poli Ave Ojai, CA, 93023 Phone: (805) 646 - 6214 jtumamait@hotmail.com Chumash Barbareno/ Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Patrick Tumamait, 992 El Camino Corto Ojai, CA, 93023 Phone: (805) 216 - 1253 Chumash Barbareno/ Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Eleanor Arrellanes, P. O. Box 5687 Ventura, CA, 93005 Phone: (805) 701 - 3246 Chumash Chumash Council of Bakersfield Julio Quair, Chairperson 729 Texas Street Bakersfield, CA, 93307 Phone: (661) 322 - 0121 chumashtribe@sbcglobal.net Chumash Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Gino Altamirano, Chairperson P. O. Box 4464 Santa Barbara, CA, 93140 cbcn.consultation@gmail.com Chumash Northern Chumash Tribal Council Fred Collins, Spokesperson P.O. Box 6533 Los Osos, CA, 93412 Phone: (805) 801 - 0347 fcollins@northernchumash.org Chumash Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties Fredrick Segobia, Tribal Representative 7070 Morro Road, Suite A Atascadero, CA, 93422 Phone: (831) 385 - 1490 info@salinantribe.com Salinan San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council Mark Vigil, Chief 1030 Ritchie Road Grover Beach, CA, 93433 Phone: (805) 481 - 2461 Fax: (805) 474-4729 Chumash Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Kenneth Kahn, Chairperson P.O. Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA, 93460 Phone: (805) 688 - 7997 Fax: (805) 686-9578 kkahn@santaynezchumash.org Chumash Xolon-Salinan Tribe Karen White, Chairperson P. O. Box 7045 Spreckels, CA, 93962 Phone: (831) 238 - 1488 xolon.salinan.heritage@gmail.com Salinan Xolon-Salinan Tribe Donna Haro, Tribal Headwoman P. O. Box 7045 Spreckels, CA, 93962 Phone: (925) 470 - 5019 dhxolonaakletse@gmail.com Salinan 1 of 2 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Dove Creek Self Storage Project, San Luis Obispo County. PROJ-2019- 006198 12/05/2019 11:15 AM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Luis Obispo County 12/5/2019 yak tityu tityu yak tiłhini – Northern Chumash Tribe Mona Tucker, Chairperson 660 Camino Del Rey Arroyo Grande, CA, 93420 Phone: (805) 748 - 2121 olivas.mona@gmail.com Chumash 2 of 2 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Dove Creek Self Storage Project, San Luis Obispo County. PROJ-2019- 006198 12/05/2019 11:15 AM Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Luis Obispo County 12/5/2019 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8943 O: (805) 594-1590 | F: (805) 594-1577 www.appliedearthworks.com December 5, 2019 Dona Haro Xolon-Salinan Tribe, P.O. Box 7045 Spreckels, CA, 93962 Re: Phase I Cultural Resource Study for 11450 Viejo Camino, Atascadero CA, 93422 Dear Ms. Haro: Applied EarthWorks, Inc. is conducting a cultural resource study for the proposed development of a 4.35-acre parcel at 11450 Viejo Camino (APN 045-342-009 and 045-342-010) in Atascadero, California. The project area is depicted on the attached copy of Atascadero Rancho CA 7 .5’ Quadrangle Maps and is located within an unsectioned portion of Township 28S, Range 12E. Your name and address were provided to us by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which lists you as an individual with knowledge of Native American resources in San Luis Obispo County, California. This letter is being submitted to formally request any information you may have regarding Native American cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site. If you have information regarding the study area or have interest in the project, please call or send a letter to my attention. Your comments will be included in our cultural resources study report. Please call me at (805) 594-1590 or email me pclarkson@appliedearthworks.com if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your time and consideration. Phil Clarkson Staff Archaeologist Applied EarthWorks, Inc. AppliedEARTHWORKS te. Attachment 4: CalEEMod Model Summary This page intentionally left blank 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 1 / 8 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 7. Health and Equity Details 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 2 / 8 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Construction Start Date 5/1/2025 Operational Year 2030 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)3.20 Precipitation (days)34.8 Location 35.45354145563887, -120.63731644069809 County San Luis Obispo City Atascadero Air District San Luis Obispo County APCD Air Basin South Central Coast TAZ 3311 EDFZ 6 Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company Gas Utility Southern California Gas App Version 2022.1.1.28 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 3 / 8 —101—491,94081,9004.20Dwelling Unit42.0Single Family Housing 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector #Measure Title Construction C-2*Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Construction C-10-B Water Active Demolition Sites Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Construction C-13 Use Low-VOC Paints for Construction Area Sources AS-2 Use Low-VOC Paints * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results. 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.144 144 31.7 30.7 0.05 1.37 7.77 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 —5,402 5,402 0.22 0.05 0.67 5,422 Mit.30.0 29.7 31.7 30.7 0.05 1.37 7.77 9.13 1.26 3.96 5.22 —5,402 5,402 0.22 0.05 0.67 5,422 % Reduced 79%79%———————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.2.14 1.80 16.3 18.4 0.03 0.72 2.85 3.57 0.66 1.36 2.02 —3,047 3,047 0.12 0.04 0.02 3,058 Mit.2.14 1.80 16.3 18.4 0.03 0.72 2.85 3.57 0.66 1.36 2.02 —3,047 3,047 0.12 0.04 0.02 3,058 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 4 / 8 % Reduced —————————————————— Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.7.73 7.62 8.30 9.59 0.02 0.36 1.37 1.73 0.33 0.67 1.00 —1,845 1,845 0.07 0.03 0.17 1,855 Mit.2.11 2.00 8.30 9.59 0.02 0.36 1.37 1.73 0.33 0.67 1.00 —1,845 1,845 0.07 0.03 0.17 1,855 % Reduced 73%74%———————————————— Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.1.41 1.39 1.51 1.75 < 0.005 0.07 0.25 0.32 0.06 0.12 0.18 —305 305 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 307 Mit.0.39 0.36 1.51 1.75 < 0.005 0.07 0.25 0.32 0.06 0.12 0.18 —305 305 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 307 % Reduced 73%74%———————————————— Exceeds (Daily Max) —————————————————— Threshol d —137 137 ——7.00 ——7.00 ————————— Unmit.Yes Yes No ——No Yes —No ————————— Mit.Yes No No ——No Yes —No ————————— Exceeds (Average Daily) —————————————————— Threshol d —137 137 ——7.00 ——7.00 ————————— Unmit.Yes No No ——No Yes —No ————————— Mit.Yes No No ——No Yes —No ————————— 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 5 / 8 Un/Mit.TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.4.13 4.05 1.01 7.17 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.76 0.04 0.18 0.22 13.7 1,534 1,548 1.52 0.06 2.71 1,607 Mit.3.57 3.48 1.01 7.17 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.76 0.04 0.18 0.22 13.7 1,534 1,548 1.52 0.06 2.71 1,607 % Reduced 14%14%———————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.3.89 3.81 1.04 5.22 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.76 0.04 0.18 0.22 13.7 1,505 1,519 1.53 0.07 0.64 1,577 Mit.3.33 3.25 1.04 5.22 0.01 0.04 0.71 0.76 0.04 0.18 0.22 13.7 1,505 1,519 1.53 0.07 0.64 1,577 % Reduced 14%15%———————————————— Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.4.05 3.96 1.04 7.08 0.01 0.04 0.68 0.72 0.04 0.17 0.22 13.7 1,496 1,510 1.52 0.06 1.48 1,569 Mit.3.48 3.40 1.04 7.08 0.01 0.04 0.68 0.72 0.04 0.17 0.22 13.7 1,496 1,510 1.52 0.06 1.48 1,569 % Reduced 14%14%———————————————— Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.0.74 0.72 0.19 1.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 2.26 248 250 0.25 0.01 0.25 260 Mit.0.64 0.62 0.19 1.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.04 2.26 248 250 0.25 0.01 0.25 260 % Reduced 14%14%———————————————— Exceeds (Daily Max) —————————————————— Threshol d —25.0 25.0 550 —1.25 25.0 25.0 1.25 25.0 ———————— Unmit.—No No No —No No No No No ———————— 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 6 / 8 Mit.—No No No —No No No No No ———————— Exceeds (Average Daily) —————————————————— Threshol d —25.0 25.0 550 —1.25 25.0 25.0 1.25 25.0 ———————— Unmit.—No No No —No No No No No ———————— Mit.—No No No —No No No No No ———————— Exceeds (Annual) —————————————————— Threshol d —25.0 25.0 ————25.0 —————————690 Unmit.—No No ————No —————————No Mit.—No No ————No —————————No 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 3 2 4 Extreme Precipitation 4 3 3 3 Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire 1 2 2 2 Flooding 5 3 3 3 Drought 1 0 3 1 Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 7 / 8 The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 3 2 4 Extreme Precipitation 4 3 3 3 Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire 1 2 2 2 Flooding 5 3 3 3 Drought 1 1 3 1 Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 7. Health and Equity Details 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)19.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)57.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No 11450 Viejo Camino & 11505 El Camino Real | Newton Development Agreement and Creek Realignment Summary Report, 9/18/2024 8 / 8 a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.