Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_6634bd3d41

PUBLIC DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR THE ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Prepared for: Alpine County 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 (530) 694‐2140 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 (916) 580‐9818 D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR THE ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Prepared for: Alpine County 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 (530) 694‐2140 Prepared by: De Novo Planning Group 1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106 El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 (916) 580‐9818 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alpine County Behavioral Health Services Facility Project Lead Agency: Alpine County 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 Project Title: Alpine County Behavioral Health Services Facility Project Location: The project site consists of approximately 0.85 acres located at 20736 State Route 89 (SR‐89), in the eastern portion of Alpine County, approximately one‐half mile southeast of Woodfords and six miles north of Markleeville, California. The project site is located in a relatively isolated, rural part of the State of California, approximately 5.3 miles from the State of Nevada border (at its closest point). The project site is also located approximately 650 feet north of the intersection of SR‐89 and Diamond Valley Road. The project site covers a portion of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 001‐08‐0030. Project Description: The proposed project would build a new Behavioral Health Services (BHS) Facility that includes a landscaped garden and walking paths situated among existing on‐site boulders. The facility would cover approximately 0.60 acres and consists of a building, an approximately 9,128 square foot garden area, and includes approximately 10,500 square feet of parking. The project site is located immediately north of Alpine County’s Community Development/Public Works complex, and would be connected to it via existing roadways. The proposed project includes improvements along approximately 200 linear feet of an existing access road connecting to SR‐89, and removal of the existing building (the Roadhouse). The total estimated area of disturbance is approximately 0.85 acres (35,600 square feet). Findings: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Alpine County has prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflect the independent judgment of Alpine County staff. On the basis of the Initial Study, Alpine County hereby finds: Although the proposed project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, there will not be a significant adverse effect in this case because the project has incorporated specific provisions to reduce impacts to a less than significant level and/or the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has thus been prepared. The Initial Study, which provides the basis and reasons for this determination, is attached and/or referenced herein and is hereby made a part of this document. Signature Date ---PAGE BREAK--- Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures are extracted from the Initial Study. These measures are designed to avoid or minimize potentially significant impacts, and thereby reduce them to an insignificant level. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would ensure that mitigation is properly implemented by Alpine County and the implementing agencies. The MMRP will describe actions required to implement the appropriate mitigation for each CEQA category including identifying the responsible agency, program timing, and program monitoring requirements. Based on the analysis and conclusions of the Initial Study, the impacts of proposed project would be mitigated to less‐than‐significant levels with the implementation of the mitigation measures presented below. Mitigation Measure AES‐1: The project applicant shall use only low or no‐glare materials for all proposed project architectural features. Mitigation Measure AES‐2: A lighting plan shall be prepared and approved prior to the installation of the project’s exterior lighting. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the exterior lighting systems have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties and SR‐89 to the greatest extent feasible. The lighting plan shall include the following: o Design of site lighting and exterior building light fixtures to reduce the effects of light pollution and glare reflected from glass and metal surfaces; o Lighting shall be directed downward and light fixtures shall be shielded to reduce upward and spillover lighting. Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the project site, the following minimization measures shall be incorporated into project design and implementation by the project applicant:  To the extent feasible, minimize disturbance of vegetation during construction activities.  Fence or flag project boundaries as necessary and fence sensitive resources to reduce disturbance.  Clean vehicles and clothing after leaving infested areas and before entering un‐infested habitats.  Wash earth moving equipment to remove vegetative material and soil before bringing equipment onto the project site  For erosion control, use certified weed‐free materials or materials produced on‐site (e.g. such as pine needle mulch).  Areas of temporary disturbance should be stabilized and re‐seeded with a seed mix of native species and of similar composition as the surrounding areas. Mitigation Measure BIO‐2: If the construction activities are to occur during the nesting season (April 1 – August 31), the project applicant shall implement the following practices for protection of migratory birds with the potential to nest within the project vicinity:  Pre‐project surveys for migratory birds and raptors will be conducted by a qualified biologist in suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of vegetation removal, construction, and development activities, and will be reviewed and accepted by the Alpine County Community Development prior to site disturbance or construction activity.  If an active raptor or migratory bird nest is located during the pre‐project surveys, the County will be notified. To avoid disturbances to or loss of active nest sites, between April 1 and August 31, a buffer will be established and maintained around the nest to avoid disturbance until the nest is no longer active. Mitigation Measure BIO‐3: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the project site, the County shall provide The California Department of Fish and Wildlife with notice of all development projects located within known or suspected critical summer or winter range or deer migration corridors within reasonable time for the Department to respond with recommendations to protect Carson River Mule Deer. Recommendations from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be incorporated into the project Improvement Plans, as feasible. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mitigation Measure CLT‐1: If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, human remains or other indications of archaeological or paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, shall be consulted to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.  If cultural resources or Native American resources are identified, every effort shall be made to avoid significant cultural resources, with preservation an important goal. If significant sites cannot feasibly be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures, such as data recovery excavations or photographic documentation of buildings, shall be undertaken consistent with applicable state and federal regulations.  If human remains are discovered, all work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and shall be followed.  If any fossils are encountered, there shall be no further disturbance of the area surrounding this find until the materials have been evaluated by a qualified paleontologist, and appropriate treatment measures have been identified. Mitigation Measure GEO‐1: Prior to the development of the project site, a subsurface geotechnical investigation shall be performed by a qualified geologist. The results of the subsurface geotechnical investigation shall be reflected on the Improvements Plans, subject to review and approval by the County Engineer. Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1: Implement a fire prevention plan. The County will include specifications in its construction plans requiring the construction contractor to prepare and implement a fire prevention plan during construction and requiring compliance with the requirements of Alpine County Code Chapter 8.20, during all phases of project construction and operation. This code requires the posting of fire restriction designation conditions, whenever federal fire restrictions are effective. Construction activities would also be required to comply with fuel reductions on vacant lots. Alpine County shall ensure compliance with all aspects of Alpine Code Chapter 8.20 during all phases of construction and operation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure HYD‐1: Prior to the start of construction activities, the proposed project shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that incorporate, at a minimum, the required hydraulic sizing design criteria for volume and flow to treat projected stormwater runoff. The BMPs shall comply with the most current standards established by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and is subject to approval by the Alpine County Engineer. Mitigation Measure HYD‐2: Prior to approval of the Site Plan, project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, demonstrate that the project would not result in on‐ or off‐site flooding impacts. Mitigation Measure NOISE‐1: The project applicant shall implement the following actions during all project construction activities:  Noise‐generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday and Sundays.  All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers which are in good working condition and appropriate for the equipment.  The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where the technology exists.  At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be located as far as practical from noise‐sensitive receptors.  Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. ---PAGE BREAK--- Mitigation Measure PS‐1: In order to provide adequate fire protection and suppression services to the project site, the Improvements Plans shall indicate the location and design specifications of the fire hydrant(s) that will be required within the project site. The Improvements Plans shall be submitted to the County’s Public Works Department and the local Fire Department(s) for review and approval. Mitigation Measure TT‐1: The project applicant shall trim and/or remove the existing vegetation located on the south side of SR 89 (along the inside corner of the curve) to the north of the project site driveway. The project applicant shall also modify the embankment such that at least 500 feet of stopping sight distance and corner sight distance is provided at the sight driveway. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INITIAL STUDY 3 Project Title 3 Lead Agency Name and Address 3 Contact Person and Phone Number 3 Project Sponsor Name and Address 3 Purpose of the Initial Study 3 Project Location and Setting 4 Project Location 4 Existing Site Uses 4 Surrounding Land Uses 4 Project Description 4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: 13 Determination: 13 Evaluation Instructions: 14 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 15 I. AESTHETICS 16 II. AGRICULTURE and FOREST 20 III. AIR QUALITY 22 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 26 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 31 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 35 XII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 39 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 43 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 46 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING 49 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES 51 XII. NOISE 52 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES 58 XV. RECREATION 60 XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 61 XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 65 ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 2 XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 67 XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 70 References 73 ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 3 INITIAL STUDY PROJECT TITLE Alpine County Behavioral Health Services Facility project LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Alpine County 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Brian Peters, Community Development Director Alpine County Community Development Department City of Markleeville, CA 96120 (530) 694‐2140 PROJECT SPONSOR NAME AND ADDRESS Alpine County 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY An Initial Study (IS) is a preliminary analysis which is prepared to determine the relative environmental impacts associated with a proposed project. It is designed as a measuring mechanism to determine if a project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment, thereby triggering the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It also functions as an evidentiary document containing information which supports conclusions that the project will not have a significant environmental impact or that the impacts can be mitigated to a “Less Than Significant” or “No Impact” level. If there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration (ND). If the IS identifies potentially significant effects, but: revisions in the project plans or proposals would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, then a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be prepared. This IS has been prepared consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063, to determine if the proposed Alpine County Behavioral Health Services Facility project (project) may have a significant effect upon the environment. Based upon the findings and mitigation measures contained within this report, a MND will be prepared. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 4 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The project site consists of approximately 0.85 acres located at 20736 State Route 89 (SR‐89), in the eastern portion of Alpine County, approximately one‐half mile southeast of Woodfords and six miles north of Markleeville, California. The project site is located in a relatively isolated, rural part of the State of California, approximately 5.3 miles from the State of Nevada border (at its closest point). The project site is also located approximately 650 feet north of the intersection of SR‐89 and Diamond Valley Road. The project site covers a portion of Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 001‐08‐0030. The proposed project’s regional location is shown in Figure 1, the project vicinity is shown in Figure 2, and the project’s conceptual plan is shown in Figure 3. EXISTING SITE USES The project site lies in an open Jeffrey and lodgepole pine forest. The understory is dominated by scattered sagebrush, buckbrush, and manzanita. There is an abandoned residence, known as the Alpine County Roadhouse (the Roadhouse), located in the southeast portion of the project site, which would be demolished as part of the proposed project. The Roadhouse is a one‐story, wood frame 1,272 square foot residence that sits on a perimeter concrete brick foundation at an elevation of 5,620 feet. A 450‐foot freestanding single‐car garage is located east of the residence. SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is located immediately north of Alpine County’s existing Community Development and Public Works complex, and is bordered to the north by a small residential community. SR‐89 is located nearby to the west. Jeffrey and lodgepole pine trees surround the project site from the north and east, and understory encompasses and surrounds the project site from nearly all directions. Dirt roads exist to the east of the project site, which connect with surrounding paved roadways, including nearby Diamond Valley Road and Barber Road. The unincorporated community of Woodfords is located approximately one‐half mile to the northwest of the project site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would build a new Behavioral Health Services (BHS) Facility that includes a landscaped garden and walking paths situated among existing on‐site boulders. The conceptual plan is shown in Figure 3. The facility would cover approximately 0.60 acres and consists of an approximately 3,881 square foot building, an approximately 9,128 square foot garden area, and includes approximately 10,500 square feet of parking. The project site is located immediately north of Alpine County’s Community Development and Public Works complex, and would be connected to it via existing roadways. The proposed project includes improvements along approximately 200 linear feet of an existing access road connecting to SR‐89, and removal of the existing building (the Roadhouse). The total estimated area of disturbance is approximately 0.85 acres (35,600 square feet). ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 5 A geothermal heating, cooling, and air conditioning (HVAC) system is currently being considered to provide heating and cooling for the proposed project building. If constructed, this system would be located within approximately 50‐100 feet of the perimeter of the building, within the County property, and would consist of approximately 4‐5 wells. This system, if implemented, is expected to consist of an indoor handling unit and a buried system of pipes, called an earth loop, and/or a pump to reinjection well, which would capitalize on the more constant underground temperatures to provide energy to the building. Unlike ordinary heating and cooling systems, geothermal HVAC systems do not burn fossil fuel to generate heat; they simply transfer heat to and from the earth. Typically, electric power is used only to operate the unit’s fan, compressor, and pump. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The project site is currently designated Residential Medium (RM) by the Alpine County General Plan land use map (Alpine County, 2009). The RM designation is intended for town sites or suburban type residential areas. A major purpose of the designation is to protect the single family residential neighborhood environment. Home occupations and certain institutional uses or public facilities are allowed, provided they do not create public nuisance or hazard and they do not seriously detract from single family residential neighborhoods. The Alpine County General Plan also provides a Hazardous Waste Facility (HWF) overlay to the County Maintenance Yard (located to the south of the project site). This HWF overlay also overlaps with the project site. The HWF overlay was given to five specific sites in Alpine County that were identified in the Alpine County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as possibly suitable for a hazardous waste facility. The County Maintenance Yard, located to the south of the project site, was considered possibly suitable for only small transfer and storage facilities. The project site has a zoning designation of Institutional (INS). The purpose of the INS institutional zone is to identify and set aside lands that are appropriate and necessary for public agencies and public utilities to maintain public facilities and services and to insure such facilities are controlled to insure protection of public health, safety and welfare. REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS Alpine County the Lead Agency for the proposed project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, Section 15050. This document will be used by Alpine County to take the following actions:  Site Plan Review;  Adoption of the MND;  Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); The following agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed project:  California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Encroachment permit ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 6 This page left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A L P I N E A L P I N E A M A D O R A M A D O R C A L A V E R A S C A L A V E R A S E L D O R A D O E L D O R A D O N E V A D A N E V A D A P L A C E R P L A C E R O O N N S I E R R A S I E R R A T U O L U M N E T U O L U M N E Reno Carson City Oakdale Auburn Cameron Park ado Hills te Bay burn South Lake Tahoe Truckee NEVADA CALIFORNIA Lake Tahoe U V 49 U V 124 U V 49 U V 49 U V 209 U V 28 U V 427 U V 167 U V 342 U V 57 U V 12 U V 447 U V 431 U V 651 U V 513 U V 756 U V 59 U V 88 U V 79 U V 828 U V 120 U V 650 U V 339 U V 104 U V 89 U V 267 U V 182 U V 174 U V 108 U V 16 U V 207 U V 88 U V 341 U V 206 U V 49 U V 89 U V 193 U V 20 U V 4 U V 26 U V 338 U V 208 U V 4 U V 120 U V 108 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 40 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 95a £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 395 80 Stanislaus National Forest Inyo National Forest Eldorado National Forest Tahoe National Forest Plumas National Forest Yosemite National Park ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIOR HEALTH SERVICES Figure 1: Regional Location Map Sources: CalAtlas; USFS; NPS. Map date: March 22, 2017. ! ! ! ! Project Location San Diego Los Angeles San Francisco Sacramento ³ 1:1,000,000 0 10 5 Miles Woodfords ! Project Location ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 8 This page left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- ^ _ U V 89 U V 88 U V 89 Diamon d Vall e y Rd Lower Manzanita Dr Zelme r Ln Ced a r Ln Wes t fork L n Pin e Ave Monroe Ra n ch R d Monro e Ran c h Rd Hawkside Ct Ha w k side Dr Upper Manzanita Dr B arber Way Diamo nd Valley Rd C arson River Rd Old Po n y Expy Sn o wshoe Thompson D it c h N O 2 Millic h Ditch M illich D itch W est Fork Ca r son Riv e r W e st F o rk Carso n River W est Fork Carso n River D.O.T. Maintenance Station Woodfords Inn Diamond Valley Elementary School Health & Human Services Woodfords Station Market 88 Alpine Christian Church TO MARKLEEVILLE ALPINE VILLAGE WOODFORDS ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES Figure 2. Vicinity Map TO KIRKWOOD 0 600 300 Feet³ 1:12,000 Sources: ESRI StreetMap North America; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service. Map date: June 23, 2017. Legend Project Location TO GARD NERVI LLE ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 10 This page left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES Figure 3. Conceptual Plan Source: Greenbough Design. Map date: June 23, 2017. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 12 This page left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 13 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture/ Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gasses Hazards/ Hazardous Materials Hydrology/ Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/ Circulation Utilities/ Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation 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. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 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. Signature Date ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 14 EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐ specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off‐site as well as on‐site, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross‐ referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 15 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: In each area of potential impact listed in this section, there are one or more questions which assess the degree of potential environmental effect. A response is provided to each question using one of the four impact evaluation criteria described below. A discussion of the response is also included.  Potentially Significant Impact. This response is appropriate when there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, upon completion of the Initial Study, an EIR is required.  Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. This response applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact". The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.  Less than Significant Impact. A less than significant impact is one which is deemed to have little or no adverse effect on the environment. Mitigation measures are, therefore, not necessary, although they may be recommended to further reduce a minor impact.  No Impact. These issues were either identified as having no impact on the environment, or they are not relevant to the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 16 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This section of the Initial Study incorporates the most current Appendix Environmental Checklist Form, contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Impact questions and responses are included in both tabular and narrative formats for each of the 18 environmental topic areas. I. AESTHETICS WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X EXISTING SETTING The following Goals and Policies that relate to State Scenic Highways are provided by the Alpine County General Plan: Goal #19: Maintain and Improve Existing Aesthetic Resources in Alpine County Policy #19a: Maintain scenic highway designation for Highways 4, 88 and 89. Policy #19b: Protect steep slopes from grading, vegetation removal, road construction or other developments or activities that may impact the viewshed from any designated scenic route. Policy #19c: Protect open areas, ridges, peaks and other skyline features from structures that may impact the viewshed from any designated County or State scenic route. Policy #19d: Regulations and guidelines for protection of any designated scenic highway routes shall not, by themselves, result in the prohibition of construction of a single family home on any parcel within the County, or the prohibition of any use which is listed as permitted within the various zoning districts that are defined in the County’s zoning ordinance. Policy #19f: Protect nighttime views by minimizing outside lighting. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 17 Policy #19g: Encourage voluntary application of the scenic highway corridor design requirements contained in the County Zoning Ordinance throughout all areas in the County. RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant. The project site currently consists of an existing building (the Roadhouse), which is visible from SR‐89. A small one‐car garage also exists on the project site. The existing development is largely surrounded by open space and is heavily covered by existing shrubs and trees. Additionally, existing public and institutional use buildings, including the Alpine County Community Development and Public Works buildings, are located just to the west and south of the project site, and are accessible from the project sight by an existing roadway. The proposed project uses are consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses. The project site is not designated as a scenic vista, although there are scenic qualities and character. The project site is partially topographically elevated from the surrounding lands. However, the proposed BHS facility would generally blend into the surrounding terrain. The existing trees and hillside located adjacent to SR‐89 would not be disturbed and would continue to partially block views of the project site. Additionally, although some trees and shrubland within portions of the project site would be removed during construction of the proposed project, the number of trees that would be removed is negligible in comparison to the number of trees present within the surrounding area. Given that the project site is not designated as a scenic vista, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Response Less than Significant. Alpine County’s scenic resources can be considered among the most beautiful in the world due to the abundance of undisturbed natural resources and remoteness. The Alpine County General Plan recognizes the need and responsibility to consider these resources when planning and has designated all State Highways as scenic. The County’s main industries, recreation and tourism, are tied directly to the county’s scenic resources. Alpine County Ordinances such as the Underground Utility Ordinance and the Scenic Highways Zoning Ordinance represent an effort by the County to conserve visual resources. The County’s existing Scenic Highways Ordinance regulates land uses adjacent to established scenic highways. Further, the General Plan encourages additional standards to insure protection of scenic highways and extend efforts to prevent or mitigate visual impacts to other areas in the County. There are three Caltrans’ Officially Designated California Scenic Highway segments in Alpine County: SR‐4, SR‐88, and SR‐89. The entire length of each these highways segments within Alpine County are considered Officially Designated California Scenic Highway segments by Caltrans. The project site lies adjacent to the SR‐89 scenic highway, and approximately 0.4 miles from SR‐88. The project site is not visible from SR‐88, although it would be partially visible from the nearby portion of SR‐89. The project site is consistent with the surrounding uses and consists of an institutional use facility. Although expected to be larger than the existing Roadhouse structure, ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 18 the facility proposed to be developed as part of the project does not present a substantially different visual prominence as compared with the existing development adjacent to the project site. Both nearby and distant background views would remain approximately equal to existing conditions. Moreover, the proposed project would be consistent with the relevant goals and policies established by the County General Plan. Although a portion of project site would be visible from motorists travelling along SR‐89, development of the proposed project would not substantially damage any scenic resources, and would not result in substantial changes to the viewsheds from the designated scenic highways within Alpine County. The proposed project would also comply with all relevant goals and policies as established by the Alpine County General Plan. Therefore, there is less than significant impact relative to this topic. Response Less than Significant. The proposed project would add a new institutional use facility to an area that currently contains numerous institutional/government use buildings. Therefore, the proposed project would be visually compatible with the surrounding uses and would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the surrounding area. Site specific characteristics would remove some vegetation within the development footprint. However, taking into account the scope and location of the proposed project relative to the surrounding area, and given the existing uses that exist on the site, this would not greatly alter the overall visual characteristics of the area. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Response Less than Significant with Mitigation. Daytime glare can occur when the sunlight strikes reflective surfaces such as windows, vehicle windshields and shiny reflective building materials. The proposed project would introduce a new facility into the project site; however, highly reflective building materials are not expected to be included for use in the project, and as such, the project is not anticipated to result in substantial increases in daytime glare. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the project would be required to implement a mitigation measure to ensure that low or no‐glare construction materials are used as part of the proposed project. The proposed project is not expected to generate substantial lighting around the proposed structure. Additionally, Alpine County General Plan Policy No. 19f requires nighttime views to be protected by minimizing outside lighting. Nevertheless, the proposed project has the potential to generate light and glare issues for nearby motorists at night. The proposed project would be required to implement a mitigation measure that requires the preparation of a lighting plan, which must demonstrate that exterior project lighting has been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties and SR‐89. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure AES‐1: The project applicant shall use only low or no‐glare materials for all proposed project architectural features. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 19 Mitigation Measure AES‐2: A lighting plan shall be prepared and approved prior to the installation of the project’s exterior lighting. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the exterior lighting systems have been designed to minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties and SR‐89 to the greatest extent feasible. The lighting plan shall include the following: o Design of site lighting and exterior building light fixtures to reduce the effects of light pollution and glare reflected from glass and metal surfaces; o Lighting shall be directed downward and light fixtures shall be shielded to reduce upward and spillover lighting. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 20 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? X 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? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response No Impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Important by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The project site has not been historically used for agricultural production. Due to the existing surrounding land uses, the project site is not suitable for agricultural production and agricultural operations. The proposed project is identified as an Institutional use, which is permitted by the project site’s current Residential Medium (RM) General Plan land use designation. Implementation of the proposed project would not disturb any farmland. There is no impact. Response No Impact. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, nor are any of the parcels immediately adjacent to the project site under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act Contract. The project site is zoned Institutional (INS). As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract. There is no impact. Responses c) and Less than Significant. The project site is located in an area consisting primarily of Institutional/Public use development and vacant, open space land. The project site is zoned Institutional (INS) and has a General Plan land use designation of Residential Medium (RM). Numerous shrubs and some scattered trees are located within the project site. However, the existing project site does not support the harvesting of timber trees, and is not zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 21 or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. Additionally, although the site would require the removal of a small number of existing trees, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. This is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Response Less than Significant. As described under Response above, the proposed project site has previously not been used for agricultural purposes, and is not designated or zoned for agricultural uses. Additionally, as described under Responses and above, the proposed project would not conflict existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, and would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non‐ forest use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 22 III. AIR QUALITY WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X 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)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X EXISTING SETTING The project site is located in Alpine County within the Great Basins Valleys Air Basin (GBVAB). The GBVAB is north of the Mojave Desert, south of the Great Basin between the Sierra Nevada to the west just along the eastern edge of California. The GBVAB has substantial elevation changes with Death Valley, the lowest point in the Unities States at 282 feet below sea level, and Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the 48 states at 14,500 feet. These substantial elevation changes bring contrasting weather —Pacific Storms bring winter snow to mountain peaks in the Sierras which quickly changed to precipitation just to the east with more arid conditions to the south. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD). The GBUAPCD was established in 1974 with a joint powers agreement between Alpine, Mono, and Inyo Counties. The GBUAPCD is responsible for enforcing Federal, State, and local air quality regulations and ensuring that the GBVAB is in compliance or moving towards compliance with the federal and state air quality standards. The GBUAPCD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 13,975 square miles. This area includes all of Inyo, Mono, and Alpine Counties. Alpine County is either in “attainment” or “unclassified” for every state and federal air quality standard with the exception of coarse particulate matter (PM10) (California Air Resources Board, 2016). However, the “non‐attainment” designation was made for the whole GBUAPCD area. As noted in the Alpine County General Plan, none of the test sites used to make this determination are located in Alpine County, where the Project is located. The predominant sources of PM10 pollution in Alpine County is from controlled burns and wildfires. Overall, due to the rural lifestyle, low population density, and limited industry, the County’s air quality is generally good. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 23 The project site is not under any applicable air quality plan; GBUAPCD also does not maintain any CEQA significance thresholds particular to its air basin. Notwithstanding, CEQA will allow reliance on standards or thresholds promulgated by other agencies. As such, the analysis utilized the values developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as their standards and thresholds are subject to a non‐attainment basin and provide both mass rate and measurable change criterion. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides significance thresholds for the operation and construction for development projects. If the thresholds are exceeded, a potentially significant impact could result. These thresholds are provided in Table AIR‐1, below. TABLE AIR‐1: SCAQMD AIR QUALITY MASS DAILY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Construction (lbs/day) Operation (lbs/day) NOx 100 55 VOC 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOx 150 150 CO 550 550 SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2015. Additionally, GBUAPCD has established the following District Rules that would be applicable to the proposed project: Rule 401—Fugitive Dust. This rule requires reasonable precaution measures to prevent visible particulate matter from being airborne, under normal wind conditions, beyond the source from which the emission originates. Rule 402—Nuisance. This rule prohibits the discharge of air contaminants, from any source, or other materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to the public. Rule 404‐A—Particulate Matter. This rule regulates the allowable concentration of particulate matter discharged per standard dry cubic foot of exhaust gas. Concentrations may not exceed 0.3 grains per standard dry cubic foot of exhaust gas. Rule 404‐B—Oxides of Nitrogen. This rule regulates the allowable concentration of nitrogen oxides emitted in exhaust fumes to not exceed 250 parts per million by volume. Rule 416—Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides. This rule controls the discharge of sulfur compounds and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur compounds may not exceed 0.2 percent by volume, and nitrogen oxides may not exceed 140 pounds per hour. Rule 417—Organic Solvents. This rule prohibits the discharge of more than 15 pounds of organic materials into the atmosphere in one day, or more than 3 pounds in any one hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 24 RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses Less than Significant. Construction and demolition activities would result in short‐term increases in emissions from the use of heavy equipment that generates dust, exhaust, and tire‐wear emissions; soil disturbance; materials used in construction; and construction traffic. These emissions would include fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from ground‐disturbing activities and both reactive organic compounds (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from vehicle and equipment operations. The PM10 and ozone precursor emissions associated with the project would be minimized based on the relatively small disturbance footprint (less than 1.0 acres) and short‐term construction period (approximately 12‐14 months). Construction‐related emissions would also be expected to remain localized around the project site and dissipate within the immediate vicinity, based on the surrounding topography and vegetation. Operational activities would also generate emissions, including through the proposed project’s generation of daily vehicle trips and through the use of electricity during the proposed project’s lifetime. Out of an abundance of caution, proposed project construction and operational‐related emissions were estimated using CalEEMod (v2016.3.1) and compared with the existing SCAQMD mass emissions thresholds. Table AIR‐2 provides the results of this modelling, below. TABLE AIR‐2: MAXIMUM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO Construction Emissions 12.0362 2.745 1.5471 1.0474 0.0160 9.9508 SCAQMD Construction Threshold 100 75 150 55 150 550 Construction Threshold Exceeded? N N N N N N Operational Emissions 1.4188 0.8107 0.8570 0.2369 .00991 06.1006 SCAQMD Operational Threshold 55 55 150 55 150 550 Operational Threshold Exceeded? N N N N N N SOURCES: SCAQMD, 2015; CAPCOA, 2016 (CALEEMOD V. 2016.3.1). As shown in the above table, the proposed project would not exceed any of the mass emissions thresholds during project construction and operation. Additionally, the requirements of District Rule 401 would ensure that the proposed project would comply with GBUAPCD rules for fugitive dust. The proposed project would also comply with all other GUBAPCD District Rules, including Rules 402, 404‐A, 404‐B, 416, and 417. The GBUAPCD does not currently maintain any CEQA significance thresholds particular to its basin. Additionally, the proposed project would not exceed any of the current CEQA significance thresholds that were established for this analysis. Although Alpine County is designated nonattainment for PM10, compliance with District Rule 401 would ensure the emissions do not result in a violation of air quality standards in the air basin or a substantial adverse contribution to air quality in the region, and impacts on air quality would be less than significant. Response Less than Significant. As discussed under Responses b) above, the proposed project would result in minor operational and construction‐related emissions. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 25 of any criteria pollutant. The proposed project would cause short‐term air quality impacts in the vicinity of the project site as a result of construction activities, including fugitive dust; however, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in long‐term or cumulatively considerable increases in air pollution emissions for which Alpine County is currently in nonattainment (PM10). There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Response Less than Significant. Sensitive receptors are those parts of the population that can be severely impacted by air pollution. Sensitive receptors include children, the elderly, and the infirm. Nearby recreational residences that could be sensitive receptors are located approximately 0.05 miles to the north of the project site could be exposed to temporary air pollutants from construction activities, such as fugitive dust, CO, and ozone precursors. Construction activities would last approximately 12‐14 months. However, localized emissions around the project site would comply with GBUAPCD Rule 401 and all other applicable District rules. Local fugitive dust, CO, and/or ozone precursor emissions generated by the operational phase of the proposed project would also be minimal. With the minor and temporary nature of the construction emissions, and the minor increase in emissions generated by the operational phase of the proposed project, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollution concentrations. Response Less than Significant. Construction activities would involve the use of gasoline or diesel‐powered equipment that emits exhaust fumes and asphalt paving, which has a distinctive odor during application. These activities would take place intermittently throughout the construction period, and the associated odors are expected to dissipate within the immediate vicinity of the work area. Persons near the construction work area may find these odors objectionable. However, the infrequency of the emissions, rapid dissipation of the exhaust into the air, and short‐term nature of the construction activities would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 26 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X 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? X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X 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? X EXISTING SETTING Alpine County General Plan Alpine County’s General Plan Conservation Element Section E addresses threated, rare, or endangered plant species. Policy No. 9 addresses areas containing or suspected of containing rare, endangered, or threatened plants. Policy No. 9: Areas containing or suspected of containing rare, endangered, or threatened plants should not be disturbed without providing the California Department of Fish and Game a reasonable period of time within which to investigate, remove, or otherwise protect them. General Plan Policy No. 13 specifically address the protection of critical habitat of all Federal or State listed sensitive, threatened, rare, or endangered wildlife. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 27 Policy No. 13: The County should provide the California Department of Fish and Game notice of all development that may encroach upon critical habitat of sensitive, threatened, rare, or endangered species with reasonable time for the Department to respond with recommendations for project alternatives and mitigation measures. General Plan Policies No. 14a and 14b require the protection of important deer habitats and migration routes to the greatest extent feasible. Policy No. 14a: The County should provide The California Department of Fish and Game with notice of all development projects located within known or suspected critical summer or winter range or deer migration corridors within reasonable time for the Department to respond with recommendations for project alternatives and mitigation measures. Policy No. 14b: The County should encourage cluster development to protect wildlife habitats and migration routes by placing them in permanent open space in conjunction with approved cluster development. RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant with Mitigation. The site conditions and the potential for the presence of special‐status species were assessed by Resource Concepts Inc. The following analysis is based on the Biological Report (Resource Concepts Inc., 2016). Special Status Plants Suitable habitat for two listed plant species occurs on‐site and would be affected by the proposed project activities. These species are Davy’s sedge (Carex davyi) and Jack’s wild buckwheat (Eriogonum luteolum var. saltuarium). Direct effects to special status plant species or their potential habitat would occur when plants or habitat are physically impacted by activities associated with construction of the proposed project. Direct impacts may include: physically breaking, crushing, or uprooting of sensitive plants by driving over them with construction equipment, trenching, or grading activities. Implementation of the proposed project would impact approximately 0.85 acres of natural vegetation and potential sensitive plant habitat through site grading and construction of the new behavioral health facility, pathways, and parking area. These actions would result in permanent, direct impacts to potential habitat for the two previously identified special status plant species have suitable habitat on‐site (Davy’s sedge and Jack’s wild buckwheat). Indirect effects to potential habitat would result from placement of fill materials, and soil compaction from heavy equipment that may alter soil characteristics and local hydrologic patterns in sensitive plant habitats. Indirect effects can also occur from the introduction of invasive weeds that may outcompete sensitive species for resources and space over time. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO‐1 to mitigate impacts to special status plants species to a less than significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 28 Special Status Wildlife No special status wildlife species were observed within the project vicinity. Based on the assessment of on‐site habitat, the project site does not contain potential habitat for any special status wildlife species with ranges that encompass the site (Resource Concepts Inc., 2016). Special Status Bird Species – Breeding and Nesting Habitat The project site provides suitable habitat for nesting and/or foraging migratory birds and other special status bird species that might be directly or indirectly impacted by construction activities. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The proposed project proposed to remove ten small diameter Jeffery Pine (4 to 10‐inch diameter at breast height or dbh) and one 20‐inch diameter Jeffrey Pine and understory scrub‐shrub vegetation for clearing and grading activities during the nesting season, which could result in direct impacts to nesting birds should they be present. All other trees (greater than 6‐inch dbh) on‐site would be retained. Indirect effects from elevated noise and increased human activity may result in nest abandonment if nesting birds are present within 200 feet (or 500 feet for raptors). Construction activities may result in adverse impacts on breeding and nesting special status bird species should they be present. The proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO‐2, which would reduce impacts to breeding or nesting birds to a less than significant level. Conclusion Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 and BIO‐2 would ensure that special status plant or wildlife species are protected throughout the region. Impacts to special status plant or wildlife species would be reduced to a less than significant level with the following mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the project site, the following minimization measures shall be incorporated into project design and implementation by the project applicant:  To the extent feasible, minimize disturbance of vegetation during construction activities.  Fence or flag project boundaries as necessary and fence sensitive resources to reduce disturbance.  Clean vehicles and clothing after leaving infested areas and before entering un‐ infested habitats.  Wash earth moving equipment to remove vegetative material and soil before bringing equipment onto the project site  For erosion control, use certified weed‐free materials or materials produced on‐site (e.g. such as pine needle mulch).  Areas of temporary disturbance should be stabilized and re‐seeded with a seed mix of native species and of similar composition as the surrounding areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 29 Mitigation Measure BIO‐2: If the construction activities are to occur during the nesting season (April 1 – August 31), the project applicant shall implement the following practices for protection of migratory birds with the potential to nest within the project vicinity:  Pre‐project surveys for migratory birds and raptors will be conducted by a qualified biologist in suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of vegetation removal, construction, and development activities, and will be reviewed and accepted by the Alpine County Community Development prior to site disturbance or construction activity.  If an active raptor or migratory bird nest is located during the pre‐project surveys, the County will be notified. To avoid disturbances to or loss of active nest sites, between April 1 and August 31, a buffer will be established and maintained around the nest to avoid disturbance until the nest is no longer active. Responses Less than Significant. Riparian natural communities support woody vegetation found along rivers, creeks and streams. Riparian habitat can range from a dense thicket of shrubs to a closed canopy of large mature trees covered by vines. Riparian systems are considered one of the most important natural resources. While small in total area when compared to the state’s size, they provide a special value for wildlife habitat. Over 135 California bird species either completely depend upon riparian habitats or use them preferentially at some stage of their life history. Riparian habitat provides food, nesting habitat, cover, and migration corridors. Another 90 species of mammals, reptiles, invertebrates and amphibians depend on riparian habitat. Riparian habitat also provides riverbank protection, erosion control and improved water quality, as well as numerous recreational and aesthetic values. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located on the project site (Resource Concepts, Inc., 2016). As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on these resources, and no mitigation is required. Response Less than Significant. A wetland is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. The Biological Report prepared by Resource Concepts, Inc. found no mapped wetland within the project site. The closest mapped wetlands are located approximately 0.3 miles to the north (Resource Concepts, Inc., 2016). Therefore, this is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. Response Less than Significant with Mitigation. Wildlife movement corridors refer to established migration routes commonly used by resident and migratory species for passage from one geographic area of habitat to another. Corridors are present in a variety of habitats and link otherwise fragmented acres of undisturbed area. Maintaining the continuity of established wildlife corridors is important to sustain species within specific foraging requirements, ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 30 preserve a species’ distribution potential, and retain diversity among many wildlife populations. Therefore, resource agencies consider wildlife corridors to be a sensitive resource. There are no mapped wildlife movement corridors within the vicinity of the project site (Resource Concepts Inc., 2016). However, CDFW maps the area as winter habitat and evidence of deer was observed on the site. On October 14, 2016, Shelly Blair (A California Department of Fish and Wildlife Biologist) states that the project site is located within the Carson River mule deer herd range, which utilized the eastern slopes of the Carson range as critical winter habitat and migrates to the Tahoe basin and Hope Valley during the summer. Evidence of deer use was observed during the site visit on July 25, 2016. The proposed project would be consistent with Alpine County General Plan Policy 14b, which encourages the County to cluster development to protect wildlife habitats and migration routes by placing development in permanent open space in conjunction with approved cluster development. Nevertheless, although the project site has been previously partially disturbed, out of abundance of caution, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO‐3. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐3 would ensure that the project applicant coordinates with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife with notice of the proposed project, consistent with Alpine County General Plan Policy 14a. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐3, this is a less than significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation Measure BIO‐3: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the project site, the County shall provide The California Department of Fish and Wildlife with notice of all development projects located within known or suspected critical summer or winter range or deer migration corridors within reasonable time for the Department to respond with recommendations to protect Carson River Mule Deer. Recommendations from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be incorporated into the project Improvement Plans, as feasible. Responses Less than Significant. The proposed project would be consistent with the Alpine County General Plan and would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans have been adopted for the region. There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 31 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant with Mitigation. A Cultural Resources Inventory and Architectural Evaluation for the proposed project was prepared by Green Basin Consulting Group, LLC, on December 30, 2016. The evaluation included an archival review of the project site and a site visit on November 1, 2016 by archaeologist Michael Drews and architectural historian Michelle Schmitter. The following discussion is based on the evaluation prepared by Green Basin Consulting Group. Archival Review A record search covering a one‐mile radius surrounding the project site was requested of the Central California Information Center (CCIC) prior to site visitation. Twenty‐five previous cultural resource inventories were conducted within the one‐mile project buffer, including an inventory of the project parcel conducted as part of a land exchange by the Forest Service in 1987 (AP‐00055). Twenty archaeological sites have been recorded within the one‐mile project buffer, none within the project parcel. No archaeological sites near the project site were determined to be eligible to the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. Three properties near the project site were found to be listed on the California Inventory of Historic Resources. However, none were found to be within the project site. Field Methods The project site was visited on November 1, 2016 by Mr. Michael Drews, archaeologist and Ms. Michelle Schmitter, architectural historian. Ms. Schmitter photographed and described all elevations of existing buildings and structures on the subject parcel. GPS points at a representative corner of each constructed feature were collected. On November 14, 2016, Ms. Schmitter visited the Alpine County Recorder’s Office to obtain information regarding the title and construction dates of the buildings scheduled for demolition. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 32 Inventory Results An abandoned residence known as the Alpine County Roadhouse and a diffuse scatter of broken bottle glass and tin cans were identified on the subject parcel. The Roadhouse is a one‐story, wood frame residence (1,272 square feet) that sits on a perimeter concrete brick foundation at an elevation of 5,620 feet. The residence has a rectangular plan with a low‐pitch gable roof with an extension in the northwest corner. The resource sits on an east‐west axis on a level site east of CA Hwy 89 in a forested setting. The building is clad primarily in Masonite applied directly over the original horizontal wood siding; wood vertical boards are found under the gable ends. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles. A brick end‐wall chimney exists on the west elevation. Fenestration is asymmetrical and primarily consists of 1/1, 2/2 and fixed wood windows. A 450square foot freestanding single car garage is located east of the residence. The residence is a 3 bedroom/1 bathroom, one‐story, low pitched gabled ranch‐style building that faces north towards the drive that runs perpendicular to State Route 89. The building is wood‐framed construction and sheathed in horizontal Masonite siding above wood boards with wood cladding under the gable ends. A brick fireplace is located off center on the west elevation. The building is set on a concrete brick foundation covered with a parge coat on the façade. An elevated concrete patio (22’ x 48’) enclosed by a low concrete brick wall sitting on a stone foundation and capped with clay bricks runs the perimeter of the façade. Entrance to the building is gained on the north up three concrete steps to the patio and another three steps to the landing stoop. The entrance portico is covered by a front‐facing low‐pitched gable roof that was originally supported by slender metal posts. On the rear south elevation, a wood deck was added sometime after 1981 based on date of photo in building record. A pair of narrow wood doors provides access to the building from the elevated deck. The footprint appears to be as‐built; the windows in the southwest extension are 1/1 wood frame windows that match existing, several with aluminum screens extant. A scatter of cans and bottle glass dating to the period of the house lies north and west of the building. The sparse scatter consists of sanitary, crimped seamed cans, and broken glass located to the north and west of the Roadhouse. A 10‐foot length of ½ inch wire rope was found along the entry road west of the house. A glass scatter that included a brown, liquor bottle base and cell battery core was located 150 feet northwest of the house near several granite outcrops. Two bases embossed with “Duncan Harwood Co. Ltd. Bottle Made in USA, 4/5 Quart, Vancouver, Canada” were found in the scatter. Fifteen unidentifiable cans occur within the site boundary. No distinct concentrations were located. Eligibility Considerations Upon researching archival materials at the Central California Information Center and the Alpine County Recorder's Office, the Alpine County Roadhouse does not appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources under any criterion. The resource has no known associations with persons or events that made a significant contribution to local, state, or national history. The Alpine County Roadhouse is not architecturally significant and does not embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, nor represent the work of a master. Additionally, the resource does not ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 33 appear to hold the potential to provide archaeological information (Great Basin Consulting Group, 2016). Archaeological materials adjacent to the Roadhouse appear to be associated with its use as a residence. They have been fully described and recorded as part of this investigation. The archaeological component of the resource is not considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places. Conclusion An evaluation of the existing built environment and associated trash scatter indicates that the cultural resources within the project site are not eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources or the National Register of Historic Places. A record search associated with the proposed project indicates that no previously listed or eligible resources exist on the property. As a result, the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties. The techniques and methods used during this investigation were such that areas most likely to contain cultural materials that would be visible to surface examination have been identified. Based upon soil descriptions, a subsurface component is unlikely. If, however, additional prehistoric or historic resources are subsequently discovered, the California Office of Historic Preservation should be notified and activities in the area should cease until those resources can be evaluated (Great Basin Consulting, 2016). The implementation of the following mitigation measure would require appropriate steps to preserve and/or document any previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during construction activities, including human remains. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation Measure CLT‐1: If any prehistoric or historic artifacts, human remains or other indications of archaeological or paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, shall be consulted to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures.  If cultural resources or Native American resources are identified, every effort shall be made to avoid significant cultural resources, with preservation an important goal. If significant sites cannot feasibly be avoided, appropriate mitigation measures, such as data recovery excavations or photographic documentation of buildings, shall be undertaken consistent with applicable state and federal regulations.  If human remains are discovered, all work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 34 Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and shall be followed.  If any fossils are encountered, there shall be no further disturbance of the area surrounding this find until the materials have been evaluated by a qualified paleontologist, and appropriate treatment measures have been identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 35 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e) 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? X EXISTING SETTING The proposed project is in the Sierra Nevada geomorphic province, situated near the crest of the mountain range. Alquist‐Priolo Zoning Act The Alquist Priolo Zoning Act requires the mapping of zones around active faults in California, in an effort to prohibit the construction of structures for human occupancy on active faults and minimize damage due to rupture of a fault. The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is intended to delineate zones where earthquakes could cause hazardous ground shaking and ground failure. Both of these acts require local cities and counties to regulate activities within these zones. Additionally, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, the California Standard Building Code, ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 36 contains specific requirements for construction with respect to earthquakes intended to be protective of public health. Alpine County General Plan The Alpine County General Plan Conservation Element Section A addresses soils and geological resources. General Plan Goal No. 1, Policy No. 1 requires soils and geologic reports for all land development projects. RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses a.i), a.ii): Less than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located in an area of moderate seismicity. The project site is located within the Sierra Nevada and is potentially affected by seismic sources located within the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Sierra Nevada Foothills Fault System to the west, and the Sierra Nevada Frontal Fault System to the east. There are no known active faults that cross the project site, and the site is not located within an Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey, 2016). However, relatively large earthquakes have historically occurred in the area. Moreover, the project site lies on the border of a State of California Special Study Zone (Woodfords Quadrangle; Office Map, Effective January 1, 1985) (California Department of Conservation, 1985). Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead‐and‐live loads. The code‐prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: resist minor earthquakes without damage, resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. The proposed project would be required to be in compliance with the latest version of the California Building Code. Implementation of the California Building Code standards, which include provisions for seismic building designs, would reduce the impacts associated with groundshaking to the extent feasible. Ground shaking associated with seismic activity could be a source of geologic hazards to life or property at the site. Nevertheless, building new structures for human use would increase the number of people exposed to local and regional seismic hazards. The Alpine County General Plan requires soils and geologic reports for all land use development projects (Conservation Element, G.P. Goal No. 1, Policy No. The following mitigation measure ensures consistency with this policy prior to development of the proposed project. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, there would be a less than significant impact relative to this topic. MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation Measure GEO‐1: Prior to the development of the project site, a subsurface geotechnical investigation shall be performed by a qualified geologist. The results of the subsurface geotechnical investigation shall be reflected on the Improvements Plans, subject to review and approval by the County Engineer. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 37 Responses a.iv): Less than Significant with Mitigation. There are no major slopes in the vicinity of the project site. Landslide risk within project vicinity is low in most areas. However, there is some limited potential for risk of landslide. With implementation of the recommendations provided by the geotechnical investigation as described by Mitigation Measure GEO‐1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Responses a.iii), Less than Significant with Mitigation. Liquefaction normally occurs when sites underlain by saturated, loose to medium dense, granular soils are subjected to relatively high ground shaking. During an earthquake, ground shaking may cause certain types of soil deposits to lose shear strength, resulting in ground settlement, oscillation, loss of bearing capacity, landsliding, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. The majority of liquefaction hazards are associated with sandy soils, silty soils of low plasticity, and some gravelly soils. Cohesive soils are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. In general, liquefaction hazards are most severe within the upper 50 feet of the surface, except where slope faces or deep foundations are present. Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content fluctuates; swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement and distorting structural elements. Expansion is a typical characteristic of clay‐type soils. Expansive soils shrink and swell in volume during changes in moisture content, such as a result of seasonal rain events, and can cause damage to foundations, concrete slabs, roadway improvements, and pavement sections. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 would ensure that the recommendations provided by a subsurface geotechnical investigation would be implemented into the proposed project’s improvement plans. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this is a less than significant impact. Response Less than Significant with Mitigation. During the construction preparation process, existing vegetation would be removed to grade and compact the project site, as necessary. As construction occurs, these exposed surfaces could be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. Effects from erosion include impacts on water quality and air quality. Exposed soils that are not properly contained or capped increase the potential for increased airborne dust and increased discharge of sediment and other pollutants into nearby stormwater drainage facilities. Risks associated with erosive surface soils can be reduced by using appropriate controls during construction and properly re‐vegetating exposed areas. Mitigation Measure HYD‐1 (as provided in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document) would require the implementation of various best management practices (BMPs) that would reduce the potential for disturbed soils and ground surfaces to result in erosion and sediment discharge into adjacent surface waters during construction activities. The implementation of this required mitigation measure would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level and no additional mitigation is required. Response Less than Significant. The proposed project would be served by an on‐site septic system. In general, soils located on and near to the project site are considered adequate to ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 38 support a septic system. A percolation test would be conducted to determine the water absorption rate of the soil, and the septic system will be designed and installed appropriately, following all applicable County guidelines and requirements. Section 13.08.100 of the Alpine County Code describes that the amount of soil available for the septic system must be adequate for its character of use. Section 13.08.050 of the County Code states that a sewage disposal permit issued by the County health officer may be required. Section 13.08.090 of the County Code establishes that the health officer shall not issue a sewage disposal permit if the installation or proposed installation of the sewage disposal permit system will permit a) the escape of any noxious odors, vapors, or gases; b) ingress or egress of flies, rodents, or other insects or animals; c) the sewage to empty, flow, drain, or otherwise enter and pollute any stream, river, lake, groundwater, or other waters that may be used or suitable for use for domestic, agricultural, or other beneficial purposes; or d) discharge of the sewage on the surface of the ground The proposed project septic system would be designed based on the results of the percolation test. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all requirements contained in County Code Chapter 13.08 relating to the use of a sewage disposal system/septic system. This would ensure that the proposed project septic system would be installed within soils capable of adequately supporting the use of the septic system. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on this environmental topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 39 XII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? X BACKGROUND Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high‐frequency solar radiation to lower‐frequency infrared radiation. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre‐industrial era ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three greenhouse gases have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013). Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The emissions from a single project will not cause global climate change, however, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Therefore, the analysis of GHGs and climate change presented in this section is presented in terms of the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts and potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to GHGs and climate change. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. In determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions, a lead agency should generally undertake a two‐step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 40 significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question is whether “the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” and thus significant in and of themselves. The cumulative project list for this issue (climate change) comprises anthropogenic human‐made) GHG emissions sources across the globe and no project alone would reasonably be expected to contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate. However, legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context and process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs. Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and, therefore, significant. RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response a) and Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project’s short‐term construction‐related and long‐term operational GHG emissions for buildout of the proposed project, were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM (v.2016.3.1). CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure MTCO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants. Short‐Term Construction GHG Emissions Estimated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project is summarized in Table GHG‐1. TABLE GHG‐1: CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS/YEAR) Bio‐ CO2 NBio‐ CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 2018 0.0000 95.9656 95.9656 0.0240 0.0000 96.5653 2019 0.0000 54.5853 54.5853 0.0133 0.0000 54.9173 Total 150.5509 150.5509 0.0373 0 151.4826 150.5509 SOURCE: CALEEMOD V. 2016.3.1 As presented in the table, short‐term construction emissions of GHG associated with development of the project are estimated to be 150.5509 MTCO2e. This represents a low of 54.9173 and a high of 54.9173 MTCO2e emitted during each of the construction years. These construction GHG emissions are a one‐time release. Construction GHG emissions from the proposed project would not impede local GHG reduction efforts, or violate GHG reduction goals set by AB 32, as required by the Public Resources Code, Section 21082.2. Therefore, cumulatively these construction emissions would not generate a significant contribution to global climate change. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 41 Long‐Term Operational GHG Emissions The long‐term operational GHG emissions estimate for buildout of the proposed project incorporates the potential area source and vehicle emissions, and emissions associated with utilities. Estimated GHG emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project with and without the above mitigation incorporated are summarized in Tables GHG‐2 and GHG‐3. As shown in Tables GHG‐2 and GHG‐3, the annual GHG emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project would be 175.2706 MTCO2e. TABLE GHG‐2: OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (UNMITIGATED METRIC TONS/YEAR) Category Bio‐ CO2 NBio‐ CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area 0.0000 2.8000e‐004 2.8000e‐004 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e‐004 Energy 0.0000 24.4204 24.4204 9.7000e‐004 2.8000e‐004 24.5267 Mobile 0.0000 121.3504 121.3504 0.0108 0.0000 121.6194 Waste 10.9615 0.0000 10.9615 0.6478 0.0000 27.1567 Water 0.1991 1.1093 1.3083 0.0205 4.9000e‐004 1.9676 Total 11.1606 146.8803 158.0409 0.6800 7.7000e‐[PHONE REDACTED] SOURCE: CALEEMOD V. 2016.3.1 The significance thresholds for GHG emissions should be related to compliance with AB 32. The GBUAPCD does not maintain GHG significance thresholds particular to this air basin. Notwithstanding, CEQA will allow reliance on standards or thresholds promulgated by other agencies. As such, the analysis utilized the values developed by the SCAQMD as their standards and thresholds are subject to a nonattainment basin and provide mass rate and measurable change criterion. The tiered approach was developed by the Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting and is presented below. Tier 1 ‐ If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered. Tier 2 ‐ consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in State CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this tier, if the proposed project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate. Tier 3 ‐ establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 3,000 CO2e tons per year for commercial projects. There is no specific GHG plan that applies to proposed project direct emissions. Additionally, the proposed project would generate a relatively small level of emissions, as provided in Tables AIR‐ 2 and AIR‐3, which would be below the 3,000 CO2e tons per year threshold as specified above. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 42 This leads to a conclusion that proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 43 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X 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? X 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? X 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? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X 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? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses Less than Significant. Small amounts of hazardous materials fuel and solvents) would be used during construction activities. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to the construction phase and would comply with applicable local, state, and federal standards associated with the handling and storage of hazardous materials. The proposed land use would not routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, with the exception of common hazardous materials such as household cleaners, paint, etc. The operational phase of the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 44 proposed project does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. There would be a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Responses No Impact. The project site is not located within ¼ mile of an existing school. The closest school is Diamond Valley Elementary School, located approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur to this topic as a result of the proposed project. Response Less than Significant. According the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), there are no Federal Superfund Sites, State Response Sites, or Voluntary Cleanup Sites on, or in the near vicinity of the project site. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. The closest cleanup site is an Evaluation site (the Woodfords/Fredericksburg Disposal Site) located over two miles northeast of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this environmental topic. Responses No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or private airport. The closest airport to the project site is Alpine County Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. There is no impact relative to this topic. Response Less than Significant. During proposed project construction activities, the adjacent roadway that connects to SR 89 would be closed off from general access at times. This could reduce emergency access to the nearby Alpine County Community Development and Public Works complex located to the south. However, this complex would remain fully accessible from Diamond Valley Road. Therefore, emergency vehicles would have full access to these vehicles. The proposed project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There is a less than significant impact to this topic. Response Less than Significant with Mitigation. The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point, while fuels such as trees have a lower surface area to mass ratio and require more heat to reach the ignition point. Alpine County has an abundance of flashy fuels (i.e. grassland) that, when combined with warm and dry summers with temperatures that have the potential to exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, create a situation that results in higher risk of wildland fires. Most wildland fires are human caused, so areas with easy human access to land with the appropriate fire parameters generally result in an increased risk of fire. The California Department of Forestry has designated the portions of Alpine County as having a very high wildland fire potential. Fire hazard rating within the project site and its vicinity is ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 45 mapped as “high” and “very high” (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007). The use of construction equipment without proper precautions during dry months could ignite a fire in the project vicinity, threatening nearby structures and residences. However, wildland fuels reduction work on the project site was completed by California Conservation Corp (CCC) crews in spring 2017, which has resulted is a substantial reduction in hazardous fuels on the site. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1 would be implemented to reduce the risk of wildfire associated with implementation of the proposed project to a less than significant level. With adherence to required fire hazard safety protocols, long‐term use of the proposed project would not significantly increase wildfire potential above existing conditions. With Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1, there is a less than significant impact to this topic. MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation Measure HAZ‐1: Implement a fire prevention plan. The County will include specifications in its construction plans requiring the construction contractor to prepare and implement a fire prevention plan during construction and requiring compliance with the requirements of Alpine County Code Chapter 8.20, during all phases of project construction and operation. This code requires the posting of fire restriction designation conditions, whenever federal fire restrictions are effective. Construction activities would also be required to comply with fuel reductions on vacant lots. Alpine County shall ensure compliance with all aspects of Alpine Code Chapter 8.20 during all phases of construction and operation of the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 46 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X 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 the production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X 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? X 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? X 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? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 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? X h) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X 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? X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 47 RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses Less than Significant with Mitigation. Operation of the proposed project has the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, if the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are not implemented. To ensure that stormwater runoff from the project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, Mitigation Measure HYD‐1 requires the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the site during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. Through application of BMPs, the proposed project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD‐1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure HYD‐1: Prior to the start of construction activities, the proposed project shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that incorporate, at a minimum, the required hydraulic sizing design criteria for volume and flow to treat projected stormwater runoff. The BMPs shall comply with the most current standards established by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and is subject to approval by the Alpine County Engineer. Responses Less than Significant. The proposed project will utilize on‐site groundwater to serve the proposed project. Water may be provided via a connection to the existing groundwater well infrastructure serving the existing buildings located within the nearby Community Development and Public Works complex. Alternatively, the proposed project may install a new well to provide water to the proposed project. In either case, the proposed project’s water demand will not substantially deplete groundwater. Additionally, the project site is not a significant recharge site. The new development will add some impervious areas, but it is not significant enough to significantly affect recharge. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge. Responses Less than Significant with Mitigation. When land is in a natural or undeveloped condition, soils, mulch, vegetation, and plant roots absorb rainwater. This absorption process is called infiltration or percolation. Much of the rainwater that falls on natural or undeveloped land slowly infiltrates the soil and is stored either temporarily or permanently in underground layers of soil. When the soil becomes completely soaked or saturated with water or the rate of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, the rainwater begins to flow on the surface of land to low lying areas, ditches, channels, streams, and rivers. Rainwater that flows off a site is defined as storm water runoff. When a site is in a natural condition or is undeveloped, a larger percentage of rainwater infiltrates into the soil and a smaller percentage flows off the site as storm water runoff. The infiltration and runoff process is altered when a site is developed. Buildings, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots introduce asphalt, concrete, and roofing materials to the landscape. These ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 48 materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. As impervious surfaces are added to the ground conditions, the natural infiltration process is reduced. As a result, the volume and rate of storm water runoff increases. The increased volumes and rates of storm water runoff can result in flooding if adequate storm drainage facilities are not provided. Development of the project site would place impervious surfaces on portions of the approximately 0.85‐acre project site. Development of the project site would potentially increase local runoff production, and would introduce constituents into storm water that are typically associated with urban runoff. These constituents could include heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper) and petroleum hydrocarbons. As described by Mitigation Measure HYD‐1, BMPs would be applied to the proposed site development to limit the concentrations of these constituents in any site runoff that is discharged into facilities to acceptable levels. As described under Mitigation Measure HYD‐1, the project applicant would be required to implement treatment BMPs that incorporate, at a minimum, the required hydraulic sizing design criteria for volume and flow to treat projected stormwater runoff. Mitigation Measure HYD‐2 requires the development of detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan. The project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans must demonstrate that the project would not result in on‐ or off‐site flooding impacts. The implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation Measure HYD‐2: Prior to approval of the Site Plan, project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, demonstrate that the project would not result in on‐ or off‐site flooding impacts. Responses No Impact. The project site is not located within the FEMA designated 100‐ year or 500‐year floodplain (FEMA FIRM Flood Plan 060632IND0A). There is no impact relative to this topic. Responses No Impact. The project site is not located within an inundation risk area. The proposed project would not result in actions that could result in a higher likelihood of dam failure. There is no impact relative to this topic. There are no significant bodies of water near the project site that could be subject to a seiche or tsunami. Additionally, the project site and the surrounding areas are essentially flat, which precludes the possibility of mudflows occurring on the project site. There is no impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 49 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses No Impact. The project site is surrounded by open space and institutional land uses. The project site is located adjacent to the existing Alpine County Community Development and Public Works complex and would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses. The project would not physically divide any established community. Therefore, there is no impact relative to this topic. Responses Less than Significant. The project site is currently designated Residential Medium (RM) by the Alpine County General Plan land use map (Alpine County, 2009). The RM designation is intended for town sites or suburban type residential areas. A major purpose of the designation is to protect the single family residential neighborhood environment. Home occupations and certain institutional uses or public facilities are allowed, provided they do not create public nuisance or hazard and they do not seriously detract from single family residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would be an allowed institutional use under the RM land use designation. The Alpine County General Plan also provides a Hazardous Waste Facility (HWF) overlay to the County Maintenance Yard (located to the south of the project site). This HWF overlay also overlaps with the project site. The HWF overlay was given to five specific sites in Alpine County that were identified in the Alpine County Hazardous Waste Management Plan as possibly suitable for a hazardous waste facility. The County Maintenance Yard was considered possibly suitable for only small transfer and storage facilities. The proposed project would not conflict with this designation. The project site has a zoning designation of Institutional (INS). The purpose of the INS institutional zone is to identify and set aside lands that are appropriate and necessary for public agencies and public utilities to maintain public facilities and services and to insure such facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 50 are controlled to insure protection of public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project would comply with this designation. The proposed project would not conflict with the Alpine County General Plan, County zoning, or any other land use plan, policy, or regulation with jurisdiction over the proposed project adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There is a less than significant impact to this topic, and no mitigation is required. Response No Impact. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans have been adopted for the area. There is no impact to his topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 51 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X 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? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses Less than Significant. No known mineral resources are located on the project site. The project site has been mapped by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Gravel mining does not occur on the Project site (California Department of Conservation, 2012). The project site in not considered an important aggregate resource. Additionally, no locally important mineral resource recovery sites have been identified for the project site. There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 52 XII. NOISE WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X 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? X 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? X EXISTING SETTING Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all‐encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady‐state A weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. The Alpine County General Plan Safety Element establishes Goals, Policies and criteria for evaluating new projects. The following provides the pertinent portions of the element: Policy No. 24a No development shall be allowed that would subject persons living in existing or planned residential areas to unhealthful noise levels. Policy No. 24b New development of noise‐sensitive uses shall not be allowed where the noise level due to non‐transportation noise sources will exceed the noise level standards shown in the chart below (Table NOISE‐1), as measured immediately within the property line of the new development, unless ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 53 effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development design to achieve the standards specified. Noise created by new proposed non‐transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards as measured immediately at the property line of lands designated for noise‐sensitive uses. Noise sensitive uses include hospitals, clinics, schools, libraries or residences. This policy shall not apply to noise sources associated with agricultural operations on lands zoned for agricultural uses, residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses or snow‐making in ski resort areas. TABLE NOISE‐1: NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR NOISE SENSITIVE USES AFFECTED BY NON‐TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Hourly Leq 50 dB 45 dB Maximum Level 70 dB 65 dB SOURCE: ALPINE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, 2009 Policy No. 24c The Planning Commission may allow noise level standards to be exceeded for temporary activities. Policy No. 24d New development of noise‐sensitive land uses will not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed the levels specified in the following chart (Table NOISE‐2), unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to the levels specified. TABLE NOISE‐2: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas Ldn/CNEL, dB Interior Spaces Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB Residential 60 45 Transient Lodging 60 45 Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60 45 Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls 35 Churches, Meeting Halls 60 40 Office Buildings 60 45 Schools, Libraries, Museums 45 Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 60 1. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2. As determined for a typical worst‐case hour during periods of use. 3. Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn / CNEL or less using a practical application of the best available noise reduction measures, an exterior level of up to 65 dB Ldn /CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table. SOURCE: J.C. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, 2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 54 RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant. A Noise Analysis was prepared by j.c. brennan & associates (j.c. brennan & associates, 2017). The following discussion is based on the results of this analysis. The existing background noise levels are defined by traffic on SR 89. To quantify existing SR 89 noise levels due to traffic, j.c. brennan & associates utilized the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The FHWA Model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free‐flowing traffic conditions. To calculate Ldn, average daily traffic (ADT) volume data is adjusted based on the assumed day/night distribution of traffic on the project roadways (j.c. brennan & associates, 2017). Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. In practice, more specific professional standards have been developed. These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local planning criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise‐sensitive land uses. Traffic Noise Based upon the traffic analysis conducted for the project site, the proposed project is expected to result in an increase of 181 daily trips (LSC, 2017). An FHWA traffic noise prediction model was used to determine the overall increase in traffic noise levels. The overall noise levels are considered to be conservative and do not account for shielding due to topography (j.c. brennan, 2017). Table NOISE‐3 shows the predicted traffic noise level increases on the local roadway network for the "Existing" as compared to the "Existing Plus Project" conditions. TABLE NOISE‐3: EXISTING AND EXISTING + PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Traffic Noise Levels Ldn (dB) Roadway Segment Distance (feet) Existing Existing + Project Change SR 89 SR 88 to Webster Street 100 60.0 61.0 +1 SOURCE: J.C. BRENNAN & ASSOCIATES, 2017 As shown in Table NOISE‐3, the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 1 dB Ldn. In addition, the predicted SR 89 traffic noise level, at the nearest residences to the north will be 58 dB Ldn with the project (j.c. brennan & associates, 2017). Noise from On‐Site Parking Activities The proposed project will result in 18 peak hour trips (LSC, 2017). As a means of determining the noise levels due to parking lot activities, j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., utilized noise level data collected for previous parking lot studies. It was estimated that the proposed parking lot would result in noise levels of approximately 48 dB Peak Hour Leq, at a distance of 50 feet (j.c brennan & associates, 2017). The closest residential receivers are more than 400 feet from the proposed parking lots. The predicted peak hour parking lot noise level at the nearest residences is 30 dB ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 55 Leq. Based on these calculation results, the Alpine County daytime and nighttime hourly standard would not be exceeded by this proposed project. Conclusion There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic and no mitigation is required. Responses Less than Significant with Mitigation. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise‐sensitive areas. Construction Vibration Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural. The primary vibration‐generating activities associated with the project would occur when the infrastructure such as grading, utilities, and foundations are constructed. The most significant source of ground‐borne vibrations during the project construction would occur from the use of vibratory compactors. Vibratory compactors would generate typical vibration levels of 0.210 in/sec at a distance of 25 feet. The closest residential buildings to the project site where construction activities would include vibratory compactors is at a distance of approximately 400 feet. The threshold for architectural damage to buildings is 0.20 in/sec. Therefore, vibratory compactors would not generate vibration levels exceeding safe levels at these distances (j.c. brennan, 2017). There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Construction Noise Construction noise impacts primarily result when: 1) construction activities occur during noise‐ sensitive times of the day early morning, evening, or nighttime hours); 2) the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise‐sensitive land uses; or 3) when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours (j.c. brennan, 2017). Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A primary project‐generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would occur primarily during daytime hours. Construction activities associated with the proposed project will occur at distances as close as 400 feet from the nearest residences to the north. At these distances construction‐related activity is predicted to generate exterior noise levels ranging from approximately 60 dB to 72 dB Lmax at the nearest residences. These noise levels could disturb local residents during noise‐sensitive ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 56 morning or evening hours (j.c. brennan, 2017). Therefore, the proposed project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure NOISE‐1. Conclusion With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE‐1, there would be a less than significant impact relative this topic. MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation Measure NOISE‐1: The project applicant shall implement the following actions during all project construction activities:  Noise‐generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the site for any purpose, shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday and Sundays.  All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers which are in good working condition and appropriate for the equipment.  The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where the technology exists.  At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be located as far as practical from noise‐sensitive receptors.  Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. Response Less than Significant. The Alpine County Airport is the closest airport to the project site, located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The Airport is a general aviation airport owned by Alpine County and is a public airport. Alpine County has not adopted an airport land use plan for the Alpine County Airport; the California Department of Transportation has exempted the Alpine County Airport from developing an airport land use plan (California Department of Transportation, 2014). Therefore, there is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Response No Impact. The project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip. There is no impact. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 57 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant. Implementation of the proposed project would not include housing, and would therefore not induce population growth directly. The proposed project would result in the construction of a new Behavioral Health Facility on the project site. The facility would cover approximately 0.60 acres and consists of a building, an approximately 9,128 square foot garden area, and approximately 10,500 square feet of parking. The proposed project is located near Nevada border, in a rural part of the State of California. There is existing infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, etc.) in the immediate vicinity of the project site. While the project would extend these services onto the site to serve the proposed development, the project would not significantly extend infrastructure beyond an area of the County not currently served. Therefore, the project would not indirectly induce population growth in other areas of the Alpine County. This impact is less than significant, as demonstrated throughout this document. No additional mitigation is required. Responses Less than Significant. A roadhouse is currently located on the project site. The roadhouse would be demolished as part of the proposed project. However, this roadhouse is only periodically occupied, and its removal would not displace substantial numbers of people or housing. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 58 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:  Fire protection? X  Police protection? X  Schools? X  Parks? X  Other public facilities? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response a.i) Fire Protection: Less than Significant with Mitigation. The closest fire station to the project site is an Eastern Alpine Volunteer Fire Department station at 60 Diamond Valley Road, located approximately 0.1 miles to the south of the project site. In addition, Alpine County Fire Station #32 (Woodfords Fire Station), located at 860 Hot Springs Road in Markleeville, is located approximately six miles to the south of the project site. It is expected the fire protection services would continue to be adequate to serve the project site after development of the proposed project. The Fire Department must have access to adequate onsite hydrants with adequate fire‐flow pressure available to meet the needs of fire suppression units. The final site plans and development specifications developed for the proposed project will indicate the location and design specifications of the fire hydrants that will be required within the project site. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact. There would be a less than significant impact relative to this topic. MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation Measure PS‐1: In order to provide adequate fire protection and suppression services to the project site, the Improvements Plans shall indicate the location and design specifications of the fire hydrant(s) that will be required within the project site. The Improvements Plans shall be submitted to the County’s Public Works Department and the local Fire Department(s) for review and approval. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 59 a.ii) Police Protection: Less than Significant. The project site is served by the Alpine County Sheriff’s Department. According to the Alpine County General Plan, Sheriff’s Department staff and facilities were adequate to serve County needs. The Sheriff’s Department Markleeville office is the headquarters for the Sheriff’s Office. The Markleeville office currently employs 14 sworn officers, including Sheriff Rick Stephens and Undersheriff Spencer Case (Alpine County, 2017). The remaining officers have various assignments ranging from patrol duties, narcotics enforcement, off‐highway vehicle enforcement, search and rescue, and bailiff duties. There are no jail facilities in Alpine County; jail services are contracted to El Dorado County and Calaveras County (Alpine County, 2017). The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated the provision of police service, or generate the need for new or physically altered police facilities. There would be a less than significant impact relative to this topic. a.iii) Schools: No Impact. The proposed project includes development of a Behavioral Health Services Facility, the use of which would not generate additional students at nearby public schools. As such, there would be no impact. a.iv) Parks. Less than Significant. Potential project impacts to parks and recreational facilities are addressed in the following Recreation section of this document. There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. a.v) Other Public Facilities: Less than Significant. Other public facilities in Alpine County include libraries and hospitals. However, the Alpine County General Plan found that the existing health facility at Woodfords is adequate for the short‐term planning period and is able to handle increases in the level of services predicted. Additionally, County‐wide library circulations are projected to increase in response to population increases, demographic changes, and diversification of library resources and programs (Alpine County, 2009). Overall, the proposed project would not generate a significant increase in the use of other public facilities in the County. There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 60 XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X 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? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant. The proposed project would not modify the use of existing local or regional Parks. A portion of the proposed project includes a landscaped garden and walking paths situated among existing on‐site boulders. However, this would not generate any adverse physical effects greater than that provided elsewhere within this document. Additionally, the proposed project is a Behavioral Health Services Facility, which would not be expected to increase the use of existing or neighborhood parks. This is a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 61 XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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.? X 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?. X 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? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 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? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant. The project site is located in a rural area, with a relatively low volume of traffic occurring on nearby roadways, including the nearby portion of SR 89. Construction traffic would be temporary and minor. Additionally, according to the Site Access Evaluation prepared by LSC, the proposed project would generate approximately 181 daily one‐way trips, 12 AM peak‐hour trips (5 entering and 7 exiting), and 18 PM peak‐hour trips (5 entering and 13 exiting). This would increase the amount of traffic that currently occurs at and within the vicinity of the project site. However, the increase in traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project would be added to nearby roadways that maintain relatively low volumes, given the rural nature of project site and its surroundings. As described under Responses d) and e) (below), the proposed project would maintain adequate site access for emergency vehicles. This existing roadway connecting directly to the project site is proposed to be upgraded to a two‐lane commercial driveway. Therefore, there would a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 62 Response Less than Significant. The Alpine County Airport is the closest airport to the project site, located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast of the project site. The proposed project includes a facility that would not protrude into active airspace, or disrupt aviation patterns. The distance, and development characteristics precludes the possibility of the proposed project altering aviation patterns or creating aviation hazards. Additionally, the proposed project would not be expected to significantly increase air travel demand. Therefore, Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any needed changes to airport operations or air travel patterns at the Alpine County Municipal Airport. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Responses d) and Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based on the preliminary site plan, access to the project site will be provided via an existing roadway located off of SR 89. This roadway also connects to the Alpine County Community Development and Public Works complex located to the south of the project site. This existing roadway is proposed to be upgraded to a two‐lane commercial driveway and would provide sufficient site access during an emergency. A site visit was conducted on Monday January 30, 2017 by LSC Transportation Consultants, as described in the Site Access Evaluation prepared for the proposed project (LSC, 2017). The purpose of this visit was to review the driver sight distance at the proposed driveway location. There are two types of driver sight distance criteria to consider in the study area: stopping sight distance and corner sight distance. Stopping sight distance is the minimum distance required by the driver of a vehicle to bring his vehicle to a stop after an object on the road becomes visible. This is the minimum distance needed for a driver on the main roadway approaching an intersection or driveway to see an object in their travel path (such as a vehicle exiting the project site) and safely come to a stop. Corner sight distance is the minimum distance that a driver waiting at a cross street (such as the site driveway) should be able to see in either direction along the main roadway in order to accurately identify an acceptable gap in through traffic. The Highway Design Manual sets forth minimum SSD and CSD values as a function of roadway design speed. Sight Distance to the North Stopping sight distance (SSD) from the north was measured to be about 430 feet. Based on a travel speed of 55 mph, 500 feet of SSD is required. As such, the SSD for southbound drivers on SR 89 is estimated to be about 70 feet short of the minimum requirement. The driver sight distance is limited by the horizontal curvature along the highway, as well as the existing vegetation and embankment on the south side of the highway (the inside of the curve). If some of this vegetation is trimmed or removed, and the embankment is modified, an additional roughly 100 feet of SSD is expected to be provided, which would meet or exceed the minimum requirement. At 55 mph (the speed limit of the roadway), the minimum value for corner sight distance is 605 feet. Looking north from the proposed driveway (from a 15‐foot setback), about 455 feet of CSD is provided. This is about 150 feet short of the minimum value. Again, the sight distance is limited by the horizontal curvature of the road and the vegetation which exists along the inside curve. If some grading and landscaping (no tree removal) is performed, it is estimated that an additional ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 63 roughly 100 feet of CSD could be achieved, although this would still be short of the minimum value. The Highway Design Manual indicates that where restrictive conditions exist (such as excessive costs attributable to right of way acquisition or extensive excavation, for example), the minimum value for CSD shall be equal to the SSD value. In this case, the actual CSD (455 feet) is short of the SSD value (500 feet) by about 45 feet (LSC, 2017). Implementation of Mitigation Measure TT‐1 would ensure that the existing vegetation along the inside corner of the curve is trimmed or removed and the embankment modified such that at least 500 feet of CSD is provided looking north from the site driveway. Sight Distance to the South Looking south from the proposed site driveway (on January 30), the CSD was limited by the presence of snow berms. Based on the attached sight distance exhibit prepared by Warren Consulting Engineers, Inc., more than 725 feet of CSD is provided under non‐winter conditions, so long as the existing trees/vegetation immediately south of the proposed driveway are removed. Assuming a design speed of 60 mph to the south of the site, conservatively (considering the relatively straight alignment along SR 89) the minimum CSD value is 660 feet. The actual CSD exceeds this value by at least 65 feet, with the tree/vegetation removal. SSD from the south was measured at 625 feet. Assuming a design speed of 60 mph to the south of the site, conservatively (given the relatively straight alignment) the minimum SSD requirement is 580 feet. The existing SSD exceeds this requirement by about 45 feet. Sight Distance at Alternate Driveway Location Driver sight distance is also evaluated at an alternate driveway location along SR 89, near the northern boundary of the project parcel. The stopping and corner sight distances to the north are similar to that at the proposed driveway location, although it appears that more large trees and embankment may need to be removed along the inside curve to obtain acceptable sight distance under this option, compared to the proposed option. Adequate driver sight distance is expected to be provided to the south (without removing any trees). Truck Access The adequacy of the curb return radii at the site access intersection to accommodate delivery trucks was reviewed. Based on the driveway layouts shown in the sight distance exhibit by Warren Consulting Engineers, the curb radii appear to provide adequate maneuvering space for a WB‐50 semi‐truck (LSC, 2017). Conclusion With implementation of Mitigation Measures TT‐1, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to emergency access, and would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan. After implementation of these mitigation measures, this is a less than significant impact and no further mitigation is required. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure TT‐1: The project applicant shall trim and/or remove the existing vegetation located on the south side of SR 89 (along the inside corner of the curve) to the north of the project ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 64 site driveway. The project applicant shall also modify the embankment such that at least 500 feet of stopping sight distance and corner sight distance is provided at the sight driveway. Response Less than Significant. The proposed project would not impede the use of public transit, or bicycle/pedestrian transportation. The proposed project would not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. There would be a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 65 XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project 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 that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? X ii) 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 of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American tribe. X BACKGROUND Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) requires a lead agency, prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if: the California Native American tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe, and the California Native American tribe responds, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification, and requests the consultation. Alpine County sent out AB 52 consultation letters on January 6, 2017 to three tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project (i.e. the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Ione Band of Miwuk Indians, and Calaveras Band of Mi‐Wuk Indians). The County did not receive any requests for consultation from these tribes or any responses from the letters sent out on January 6, 2017. RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses a‐b): Less than Significant with Mitigation. There are no known unique cultural resources known to occur on, or within the immediate vicinity of the project site. No instances of cultural resources or human remains have been unearthed on the project site. Based on the above information, the project site has a low potential for the discovery of prehistoric, ethnohistoric, or historic archaeological sites that may meet the definition of Tribal Cultural Resources. Although no Tribal Cultural Resources have been documented in the project site, the project is located in a ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 66 region where cultural resources have been recorded and there remains a potential that undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resource definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during ground‐disturbing and construction activities. Examples of significant archaeological discoveries that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resources definition would include villages and cemeteries. Due to the possible presence of undocumented Tribal Cultural Resources within the project site, construction‐related impacts on tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure CLT‐1 would require appropriate steps to preserve and/or document any previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during construction activities, including human remains. Implementation of this measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURE(S) Implement Mitigation Measure CLT‐1. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 67 XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS WOULD THE PROJECT: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X 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? X 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? X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Responses b) and Less than Significant. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be conveyed to an on‐site self‐contained septic system. The proposed project would comply with all relevant applicable requirements as provided within the County Code. Chapter 13.08 of the Alpine County Code provides the County’s requirements for the installation of a sewage disposal/septic systems within Alpine County. Sections from Chapter 13.08 of the County Code that may be applicable to the proposed project are provided as follows. Section 13.08.040 of the County Code specifies that the County building official is only authorized to issue a permit for the construction of a building or structure in the county if he has been provided a statement issued and signed by the County health officer that the proposed project water and sewage systems are installed and approved. Section 13.08.050 states that no on‐site sewage disposal systems shall be constructed except in accordance with the required sewage disposal permit issued by the County health officer, and that the health officer shall not issue an on‐site sewage disposal system permit except in response to a duly filed ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 68 application. Section 13.08.090 of the County Code establishes that the health officer shall not issue a sewage disposal permit if the installation or proposed installation of the sewage disposal permit system will allow a) the escape of any noxious odors, vapors, or gases; b) ingress or egress of flies, rodents, or other insects or animals; c) the sewage to empty, flow, drain, or otherwise enter and pollute any stream, river, lake, groundwater, or other waters that may be used or suitable for use for domestic, agricultural, or other beneficial purposes; or d) discharge of the sewage on the surface of the ground. Section 13.08.100 of the County Code describes that the amount of soil available for the septic system must be adequate for its character of use. The proposed project would not be served by a separate wastewater treatment provider; therefore, the proposed project would not result in a determination by any wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the proposed project; additionally, the proposed project would not exceed any applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Further, the construction of the septic system would not cause any significant environmental effects. The proposed project would comply with all relevant requirements as contained in the County Code pertaining to the use of a sewage disposal/septic systems. The proper design of the proposed project septic system, as well as review and approval of the septic system by the County health officer, would ensure there is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Responses Less than Significant with Mitigation. Development of the project site would place new impervious surfaces on the large portions of the approximately 0.85‐acre project site. Development of the project site would potentially increase local runoff production, and would introduce constituents into storm water that are typically associated with impervious runoff. These constituents could include heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper) and petroleum hydrocarbons. BMPs would be applied to the proposed site development to limit the concentrations of these constituents in any site runoff that is discharged into facilities to acceptable levels. Development of stormwater drainage facilities at the project site is not expected to cause any additional environmental effects beyond those identified elsewhere in this document. To ensure that stormwater runoff from the project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, Mitigation Measure HYD‐1 (as provided under the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document) requires the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the site during both the construction and operational phases of the project. Through compliance with BMPs, the proposed project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. There is a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Response Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would either utilize existing well‐water sources that currently serve the existing buildings within the nearby Community Development and Public Works complex, or develop a new on‐site well. In either case, the proposed project would have sufficient on‐site well water supplies available from existing entitlements to meet the increased demand for potable and non‐potable water generated by the proposed project. Chapter 8.36 of the Alpine County Code describes the ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 69 County’s regulations for the construction, modification or repair, and destruction of wells within the county such that the groundwater of the county is not contaminated or polluted, and the water obtained from wells will remain suitable for beneficial use. A permit from the County health officer is required under the condition that the proposed project constructs, repairs, modifies, or destroys a well. The proposed project would comply with all County requirements and regulations, including those contained in Chapter 8.36 of the County Code, as necessary. With compliance with all County regulations and requirements, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic and no mitigation is required. Responses f) and Less than Significant. Disposal of solid waste would occur at permitted facilities. The proposed project would generate small quantity of solid waste from the removal of construction materials during project construction. Any materials used during or generated from construction would be properly disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Project operation would also generate waste that would be picked up the local hauler. The proposed project would be subject to all relevant Solid Waste Transfer Service Charges, as specified under Alpine County Code Section 3.04.070. There would be a less than significant impact relative to this topic. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 70 XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? X 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)? X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS Response Less than Significant. As described throughout the analysis above, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal to the environment. All potentially significant impacts related to plant and animal species would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures aimed at reducing stormwater pollutants and runoff through Mitigation Measure HYD‐1, as well as through compliance of various state, regional and local standards. In addition, the Mitigation Measures (BIO‐1 through BIO‐3) provided in the Biological Resources section of the document would ensure the all biological impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Through the full mitigation of biological impacts, the project would not result in any cumulative impacts, related to biological resources. These are less than significant impacts. Response Less than Significant. As described throughout the analysis above, the proposed project would not result in any significant individual or cumulative impacts that would not be mitigated to less than significant levels. Therefore, these are less than significant impacts. Response Less than Significant. As described throughout the analysis above, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that would have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The analysis in the relevant sections above provides standards and mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts on ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 71 humans to less than significant levels. A variety of mitigation measures including those related to light and glare, cultural resources, seismic hazards, hazardous materials, water pollution and water quality, and transportation ensure any adverse effects on humans are reduce to an acceptable standard. Therefore, these are less than significant impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 72 This page left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 73 REFERENCES  Alpine County. 2009. Alpine County General Plan. Available online at: .  Alpine County. 2015. Alpine County 2015 Regional Transportation Plan. December 2015. Available online at: < http://www.alpinecountyca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1089>  Alpine County. 2017. Alpine County Sheriff’s Office website. Available online at: . Accessed on July 2, 2017.  ArcGIS. 2017. ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service. Accessed on June 23, 2017.  California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA). 2016. CalEEMod version 2016.3.1. Available online at: < http://www.caleemod.com/>.  California Air Resources Board. 2016. Area Designations Maps/State and National. Available online at: . Accessed July 6, 2017.  California Department of Conservation. 1985. State of California Special Study Zones. Woodfords Quadrangle, Office Map. Effective January 1, 1985. Available online at < http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/WOODFORDS.PDF>  California Department of Conservation. 2012. State of California Department of Conservation SMARA Maps. Available online at:  California Department of Transportation. 2014. 2015 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Status. December 2014. Available online at: . Accessed July 12, 2017.  California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2017. EnviroStor database. Accessed on 5/4/2017. Available at:  California Geological Survey. 2016. Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available online at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap  ESRI. 2017. ESRI StreetMap North America. Accessed on June 23, 2017  Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2017. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed on May 4, 2017. Available online at: ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL STUDY – ALPINE COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES FACILITY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2017 Alpine County PAGE 74  Great Basin Consulting Group, LLC. 2016. A Cultural Resources Inventory and Architectural Evaluation for the Proposed Alpine County Behavioral Health Center, near Woodfords, Alpine County, California. December 30, 2016.  Greenborough Design, 2017. Alpine County Behavioral Health Services Conceptual Plan. June 23, 2017.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available at: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf  j.c. brennan & associates. 2017. Alpine County Behavioral Health Facility. July 17, 2017.  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2017. Alpine County Behavioral Health Services Office – Site Access Evaluation. February 21, 2017.  Resource Concepts, Inc. 2016. Alpine County Community Development Behavioral Health Facility. October 20, 2016.  South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March 2015. Available online at: .