2021-05-18_08a HASLO Mixed-UseMEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-001; MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF 63 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND 1,178
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE; LOCATION – 700 OAK PARK
BLVD.; APPLICANT – HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
(HASLO); REPRESENTATIVE – SCOTT SMITH
D ATE: MAY 18, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Approval by the Planning Commission will result in a lot merger of four (4) parcels and the
construction of a mixed-use development including 63 affordable housing units and 1,178
square feet of commercial space.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Lot
Merger 21-001 and Conditional Use Permit 21-001 located at 700 Oak Park Blvd
(Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
Site Description
The site of this proposed project is located on Oak Park Blvd. between El Camino Real and
Chilton Street near the western boundary of the City (Attachment 2). The 2.16-acre site is
comprised of four (4) separate parcels, each zoned Office Mixed-Use (OMU). Three of the
parcels are vacant and the fourth is developed with a two-story commercial structure and a
manufactured residential unit. The two structures on the site would be demolished as part
of this project. The site has varying slopes, but generally slopes to the north and northeast
towards the lowest part of the site along El Camino Real. There are a number of existing
oak trees located on the project site of varying levels of health. Surrounding land uses
include single family residences to the east and south, a mixture of commercial uses across
Oak Park Blvd. to the west, and US Highway 101 to the north.
Item 8.a - Page 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 2
The purpose of the OMU zoning district is to provide areas for the establishment of
corporate, administrative, and medical offices and facilities, commercial services that are
required to support major business medical development, and multi-family housing. The
OMU district implements and is consistent with the Mixed-Use land use category of the
General Plan. The OMU zone allows mixed-use developments with the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Project Description
The mixed-use project consists of 63 affordable multi-family residential units, a 1,342
square-foot community room, and 1,178 square feet of commercial space. The project
would also include outdoor recreational space with a barbeque area and children’s
playground near the remaining grove of oak trees near the eastern portion of the project site
for the residents of the development. The 63 dwelling units are proposed in three (3)
separate, three-story buildings. Two (2) of the buildings would be located along the El
Camino Real frontage and one (1) along the Chilton Street frontage. The preliminary unit
breakdown of the 63 units is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Unit Breakdown by Building
One-bedroom
(500 sq. ft.)
Two-bedroom
(750 sq. ft.)
Three-bedroom
(950 sq. ft.)
Total
Building #1 7 6 6 19
Building #2 16 2 3 21
Building #3 7 9 7 23
Total 30 17 16 63
The community room is located on the ground level of Building 1 and will be available for
use by all residents. The commercial suite is found on the ground level of Building 2, near
the intersection of Oak Park and El Camino Real.
As the developer, HASLO, or its affiliate, intends to rent all of the units to low income
individuals and families. “Low income” is defined as households having an annual income
at or below 80% of the San Luis Obispo County’s median income. HASLO will permanently
retain ownership of the property and will record deed restrictions or other instruments on title
to maintain that the affordability of the units in perpetuity.
Pre-application Review
Staff presented the project to City Council as a pre-application on November 10, 2020
(Attachment 3). Council reviewed two different site plans provided by the applicant and
provided positive feedback on the site plan that is currently under consideration. Council
was supportive of many aspects of the project, especially its affordability and proximity to
goods and services for future residents. Council encouraged the applicant to design the
project to be accommodating for both pedestrians and bicyclists and to incorporate
greywater systems, solar panels, and additional landscaping to improve the project’s
sustainability. Finally, Council implored the design team to work with staff to meet
Item 8.a - Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 3
emergency access requirements and to carefully consider the outdoor lighting choices to
minimize impacts to the Chilton Street neighborhood.
Staff Advisory Committee (SAC)
Staff Advisory Committee discussed the project on multiple occasions, but most recently on
April 28, 2021, to compile conditions of approval contained in the draft resolution. The
primary topic of conversation was around ensuring there would be adequate emergency
access to all of the buildings on site, and those issues have since been resolved. SAC also
discussed undergrounding of aerial utility lines, location of an on-site fire hydrant, and public
improvements. The SAC is supportive of the project and recommends approval to the
Planning Commission.
Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
The ARC reviewed the project at its meeting on April 5, 2021 (Attachment 4). The Committee
spoke in support of the project, but asked the applicant to consider reducing the size of the
development to a scale that is more appropriate for the adjacent residential neighborhood.
There was concern that the two-story massing on Chilton Street should be reduced. It was
also suggested that Building #2, nearest the corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real should
have more articulation on the El Camino Real elevation to add interest and soften its
appearance. The ARC also urged the applicant to consider increasing the amount of
commercial area in the development to better serve the residents and the surrounding
neighborhood. The ARC complimented the Agrarian architecture, color and material
choices, and robust landscaping, and recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
In response to comments from the ARC, the applicant removed two (2) units from the
project, reducing the number of units from 65 to 63. The massing of Building 3 was reduced
as a direct result of this reduction. In addition, more articulation was added to the north
elevation of Building 2. These revisions are described in more detail in the Architecture
section of the staff report.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan Land Use designation of the project site is Mixed Use, which is intended
to provide for a variety of retail, service, commercial, offices, residential, and other
compatible uses that support multiple neighborhoods and the greater community. The
project is consistent with policies in both the Land Use and Housing Elements.
Land Use Element:
LU5-8.2: Enable mixed-uses and development intensities to be increased in the Mixed Use
corridors to promote pedestrian activity, provide better shopping opportunities and
discourage incompatible commercial service uses in areas adjoining residential uses or
classifications.
Item 8.a - Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 4
LU5-10.2: Accommodate multiple family housing at a maximum density of 25 dwelling units
per acre, FAR of 1.5 and total building height no greater than 35 feet.
LU5-10.4: Require that mixed-use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts
between the commercial and residential uses (e.g. noise, lighting, security, vehicular
access) and provide adequate amenities for residential occupants.
LU5-11.2: Accommodate the development of free-standing multi-family dwelling units on a
minimum site area of 20,000 square feet at a density of up to 25 units per gross acre.
Require that free-standing units be designed to convey a high-quality image.
Additionally, affordable housing projects are strongly encouraged by the Housing Element.
Cooperation with non-profit organizations, such as HASLO, to build affordable units is also
encouraged. The project site is identified as an opportunity site for affordable housing in the
6th cycle Housing Element, which received final certification by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development on May 5, 2021. Specific, applicable provisions of
the Housing Element are described below.
Housing Element
A.2: The City shall continue to use the following incentives for the production of affordable
housing (a) allowing accessory dwelling units under specified criteria; (b) allowing
manufactured housing on legal parcels in all residential zoning districts; (c) allowing density
bonuses for very low- and low-income housing, senior housing projects, and any other
project types called for under state law.
A.3: The City shall give priority to processing housing projects that provide for affordable
housing, and lower development impact fees shall be charged as an incentive for low, very
low, and extremely low-income housing.
A.9: The City shall continue to enable and encourage multiple-family, rental apartments,
senior, mobile home, and special needs housing in appropriate locations and densities.
These multiple-family residential alternative housing types tend to be more affordable than
prevailing single-family residential low and medium-density developments.
A.11: The City shall continue to use and expand the density bonus program to encourage
affordable housing supply.
B.1: All residential projects that receive additional densities or other City incentives to include
affordable housing shall be placed into a City-approved program to maintain the affordability
for at least 45 years (owner-occupied) or 55 years (rental units).
C.4: The City shall consider cooperation with non-profit organizations and other developers
for loan and/or grant applications to provide extremely low, very low, and low-income
housing.
Item 8.a - Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 5
D.1: The City shall relax parking standards for apartments containing extremely low, very
low, and low and/or senior housing.
I.4: The City shall encourage multiple-family housing projects that include a portion of the
units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate larger families.
In addition to the programs listed above, Program A-1-1 implements Assembly Bill 1397,
which allows vacant sites identified in two consecutive Housing Elements to be developed
for residential use by-right, in accordance with California Government Code Section
65583.2(c). This by-right requirement applies to housing developments in which at least
twenty percent (20%) of the units are affordable to lower income households. Processing
this permit at this time with a Conditional Use Permit affords the City discretion that would
be forfeited in the future if it were to be developed under AB 1397.
The project site was identified in the Housing Element site inventory as a potential site for
affordable housing and towards meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) for the current planning cycle. The RHNA assigned to the City for the sixth cycle is
692 units, and 107 of those are allocated to the low income category. The applicant will
maintain the 63 units as affordable for lower income households, which will fulfill fifty-eight
percent (58%) of the units in the low income category for the current planning cycle.
Development Standards
The conceptual plan meets the development standards for setbacks, height, floor-area ratio
and lot coverage as shown in Table 2. The project qualifies for an eighty percent (80%)
density bonus as allowed by State law. Density bonus laws will be discussed in greater detail
later in this report.
Table 2: Development Standards
Development Standard OMU Requirement Proposed
Setbacks:
Front (Oak Park Blvd) 0-10 feet 18 feet
Rear 0-15 feet Approx.90 feet
Street side (Chilton St.) 0-15 feet 0 feet
Street Side (El Camino Real) 0-15 feet 0 feet
Floor-Area Ratio 1.0 .52
Lot Coverage 70% 15.7%
Height 35 feet or three-stories 42.35 feet- Building 1
38.05 feet – Building 2
30 feet – Building 3
Item 8.a - Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 6
Density
The OMU zoning district allows a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre for mixed-use
developments. Residential density for mixed-use parcels is calculated differently than
exclusively single- and multi-family residential zoning districts. Pursuant to Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.36.030(C), mixed-use projects use residential density
equivalencies to calculate a project’s density. Table 3 illustrates how that number is
determined.
Table 3: Density Equivalent Units
Residential
Dwelling Unit
Type
Density Equivalent
Number of Units
Proposed
Project Density
Equivalent Units
Live/Work Unit 0.5 0 0
Studio 0.5 0 0
1-bedroom 0.75 30 22.5
2-bedroom 1.0 17 17
3-bedroom 1.5 16 24
4-bedroom 2.0 0 0
Total: 63 63.5
At 2.16 acres, the site can accommodate up to 43 dwelling units. The project proposes 63
units, but the number of units for determining compliance with the Municipal Code is 63.5
density equivalent units.
State Affordable Housing Legislation
Signed into law on October 9, 2019, and effective as of January 1, 2020, Assembly Bill 1763
amended State Density Bonus Law (Government Code §65915) to allow denser affordable
housing developments. The statute applies the density bonus on a sliding scale determined
by the percentage of affordable units within a development (Attachment 5). The proposed
project qualifies for an eighty percent (80%) density bonus under this legislation due to one
hundred percent (100%) of the units proposed as restricted as affordable to lower income
households. Therefore, using the density bonus granted by AB 1763, the project site can
accommodate a total of 78 dwelling units.
For reference, restricting the rental units for lower income households allows the project to
qualify for a density bonus, pursuant to AGMC Chapter 16.82. Eligibility for density bonuses
is determined by the percentage of units in a development that are restricted to low income
households. This project qualifies for a thirty-five percent (35%) density bonus under the
City’s existing regulations, the highest allowed by the Municipal Code, because greater than
twenty percent (20%) of the units will be affordable to lower income households. The thirty-
five percent (35%) density bonus increases the base density of 43 units by 15 units, bringing
the number of units allowed at this site to 58 units.
Item 8.a - Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 7
While the site could be developed with up to 78 units under the AB 1763, the applicant has
tried to strike a balance with a project that is both appropriate for the site and economically
feasible. The topography of the site, along with the desire to preserve as many of the existing
oak trees as possible and minimize impacts to the adjacent neighbors, resulted in an initial
request for a fifty-three percent (53%) density bonus. The revised project description
proposing 63 units represents a forty-seven percent (47%) density bonus, well below the
eighty percent (80%) maximum allowed by AB 1763. The 63 units proposed represent
twenty-two percent (22%) of the City’s low income RHNA for this planning cycle.
Incentives and Concessions
In addition to granting a density bonus, AB 1763 requires the City to grant concessions and
incentives to the developer of affordable housing projects based on the percentage of
affordable units proposed. The incentives or concessions must be granted by the City unless
findings are made, based on substantial evidence stated in the record, that the incentives
or concessions (i) do not result in an identifiable and actual cost reduction, (ii) would have a
specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, the physical environment, or any
historical property for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate without
rendering the development unaffordable to lower income households, or (iii) are contrary to
state or federal law.
The proposed project would qualify for four (4) incentives based on providing 100 percent
of the units to lower income households. The incentives and concession as described in the
legislative text may include:
• A reduction in site development standards including, but not limited to, a reduction in
setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces
that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost
reductions, necessary to construct affordable housing units
• Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial,
office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city,
that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing
costs
The developer identified two (2) concessions as part of its formal entitlement application; a
waiver to allow the maximum height to exceed 35 feet, and a reduction of the parking
requirement. Council addressed both concessions during the pre-application hearing in
November. Council was supportive of the parking reduction due to the site’s proximity to a
bus stop that will serve the residents as well as the inclusion of ample amounts of bicycle
parking. Public transportation and bicycling serve as alternative modes of transportation that
reduce the burden on parking facilities.
The request to exceed the height limit was also well received by Council. The topography
of the site, sloping from north to south, would soften the impact of a building that exceeds
the height limit if located along the El Camino Real frontage. Additionally, because the
Item 8.a - Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 8
intersection adjacent to the project serves as a gateway to the City, high quality design and
massing are important. Council was supportive of an Agrarian architecture style, having
seen it successfully implemented at the HASLO project at 224 S. Halcyon Road. The
combination of the constraints with the topography of the site and the desire to create an
aesthetically impressive entryway to the City resulted in support for the height exception.
State law also significantly impacts the discretion afforded to local governments when
reviewing and acting on affordable housing projects. In particular, the Housing
Accountability Act (Government Code §65589.5) prohibits local governments from denying
or reducing the density of proposed affordable housing projects except where findings are
made, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that either (i) the project
fails to meet applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and
criteria, or (ii) the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or
safety and there is no other way to mitigate or avoid those impacts. Receipt of a density
bonus does not constitute an inconsistency with the local agency’s objective standards.
Traffic
The City brought on Central Coast Transportation Consulting (CCTC) as a consultant to
evaluate potential transportation impacts. CCTC prepared a Transportation Impact Analysis
Report (TIAR) (Attachment 6) for the project, which determined that the project would
generate 437 new vehicle trips per weekday, including 23 AM peak hour trips and 30 PM
peak hour trips. Potential impacts were evaluated using both vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
and level of service (LOS) methodologies. The TIAR concluded that the project-generated
VMT would be less than the threshold of significance contained in the City’s adopted VMT
policy. The TIAR also examined the level of service at two intersections in the proximity of
the project site. The Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real and Oak Park Blvd/W. Branch St/ US
101 NB On-Ramp intersections currently operate at LOS C and E, respectively. The addition
of project traffic is not anticipated to deteriorate the LOS at either of these intersections.
Implementation of the proposed conditions of approval for this project to update the signal
timing are actually anticipated to improve LOS at each intersection.
Access and Parking
Currently, the site can be accessed from two driveways on El Camino Real. The veterinarian
practice located just to the east of the project site also takes access from the easternmost
driveway as allowed by an existing easement for drainage, access, and utilities benefiting
the adjacent parcel. The existing easternmost driveway is proposed to remain, and one (1)
new driveway is proposed from El Camino Real in approximately the same location as the
existing driveway. The new driveway is required for emergency access and will also improve
circulation in and around the project site. The proposed driveway was designed to
accommodate emergency vehicles to the satisfaction of the Five Cities Fire Authority. The
project also proposes to add City-standard sidewalk along the Oak Park Blvd. and Chilton
Street frontages to improve pedestrian safety and circulation.
Item 8.a - Page 8
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 9
The State’s density bonus law allows parking reductions by-right through the entitlement
process for projects that qualify for a density bonus. Under this law, affordable housing
projects require one (1) space for studios and 1-bedroom units and two (2) spaces for 2-3
bedroom units. Projects consisting of four or more units that do not include affordable
housing units must provide one additional parking space for every two (2) units in the
development for guest parking. However, parking rates for affordable housing developments
are inclusive of guest parking. As a result, additional guest parking beyond the resident
parking is not required.
The commercial component of the project has a parking rate of one (1) space for every 250
square feet of gross commercial floor area. The parking requirement for the entire project is
101 spaces as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Parking Requirements
Residential Parking Commercial
Parking
Total
Development
Code
Requirements
1 bedroom: 1 space/unit (30 spaces) One space per
250 square feet
of floor area (5
spaces)
2+ bedrooms: 2 spaces/unit (66 spaces)
Guest parking: 0.5 space/unit (33 spaces)
Total: 129 spaces 5 spaces 134 spaces
Density
Bonus Law No guest parking required -33 spaces
Total
Required: 101 spaces
Total
Proposed
Parking
Automobile Spaces: 83 spaces (73 standard & 10 ADA)
Motorcycle Spaces: 4 spaces 87 spaces
A total of 83 vehicular parking spaces and six (6) motorcycle parking spaces are proposed
on site. Pursuant to AGMC 16.56.080, motorcycle parking areas count toward fulfilling
automobile parking space requirements at a rate of one parking space per motorcycle
parking area that is required by the Code. Six (6) motorcycle parking spaces are currently
proposed, however since only four (4) motorcycle parking spaces are required, only four (4)
spaces count towards fulfilling the automobile parking requirement. Including the motorcycle
spaces, 87 parking spaces are provided on site. Five (5) spaces will be reserved for the
commercial use, but the remaining parking spaces will be shared amongst the residents.
The 87 parking spaces fulfill eighty-six percent (86%) of the parking requirement for the
project. Removing the five (5) spaces that are required for the commercial component from
the equation brings the reduction down to eleven percent (11%) for residents during the
overnight hours when parking demand is at its peak. HASLO periodically conducts point in
time parking surveys of developments under their management and have found that, on
Item 8.a - Page 9
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 10
average, less than one car per apartment is needed during the evening and early morning
hours.
As a result of not meeting the parking requirement, a fourteen percent (14%) parking
reduction is requested as a concession, pursuant to AB 1763. If the concession results in
an identifiable and actual cost reduction to the project, would not have a specific adverse
impact upon public health and safety, the physical environment, or any historical property,
and not is contrary to state or federal law, the City is obligated to grant this parking reduction.
Implementation of conditions of approval contained in the draft resolution are intended to
mitigate any adverse impacts as a result of granting this concession.
Architecture
The architectural character of the units is characterized as Agrarian by the design team, and
utilizes a mix of exterior colors and materials. The project uses varying roof pitches and
heights to break up the building mass and provide visual interest. The structures are
proposed with predominately fiber cement board and batten siding, but stucco and dark
bronze metal panels are used as accent materials. Metal, standing seam awnings are found
at each exterior doorway and over some windows. Asphalt shingles are used as the roofing
material on each of the buildings. The roof has been designed to accommodate solar panels,
as well. W hite will be used as the base color for the buildings, and used for the window trim
and brackets. Blue, gray, and green hues are proposed as accent colors (Attachment 7).
The commercial entrance will be oriented towards the Oak Park Blvd and El Camino Real
intersection and will use architectural details to differentiate it from the residential
component. A tower element is proposed above the commercial suite and small pedestrian
plaza.
As mentioned previously, the ARC expressed concern with potential impacts to the Chilton
St. neighbors as a result of the project’s size and massing. In response to these concerns,
two units were removed from the eastern portion of Building #3. The removal of these units
significantly reduces the massing of this portion of the building from a two-story elevation to
a single story, as seen in the images on the following page.
This area intentionally left blank.
Item 8.a - Page 10
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 11
Perspective of Chilton Street elevation before unit reduction
Perspective of Chilton Street elevation after unit reduction
This reduction makes the project to have the appearance of a one-story structure along this
portion of Chilton St. This modification combined with the fact that the Chilton St. residences
are elevated above the project site is intended to minimize any adverse impacts relating to
views and neighborhood compatibility.
The ARC urged the applicant to add articulation to the northern elevation of the Building #2
to reduce the monolithic appearance and add visual appeal. The applicant responded by
recessing some of the building planes on this elevation to create shadowing and break up
the massing. These changes can be most easily recognized from plan view as seen below.
Building 2 before: Building 2 after:
A two story element was also added on the north elevation of Building #2 to add interest and
break up the massing.
Item 8.a - Page 11
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 12
Landscaping
One of the challenges facing the design team was the presence of many healthy oak trees
at this site. There are a total of thirty-six (36) trees currently on site, most of which are coast
live oaks. Fifteen (15) trees are proposed to be removed as part of this project, and of the
fifteen, seven (7) are coast live oaks. An arborist report concluded that the majority of the
oak trees proposed for removal are in poor health due to alterations to natural drainage
patterns, compacted soil in root zones, and improper pruning over the years of activity on
this site (Attachment 8). Thirty-five (35) new coast live oak trees are proposed as mitigation
for the oaks to be removed. In an effort to restore the areas around the remaining oak trees,
a mix of native plants will be added under the oak tree canopies.
In addition to the new coast live oaks, forty-nine (49) other trees are proposed to be planted
as part of this project. Those new trees will be a mix of western redbud, purple leaf plum,
and Brisbane box trees. The project proposes robust landscaping around the three
structures and picnic area and will include the use of a number of different shrubs including
kangaroo paws, wild rye, rosemary, sage, and agave. The plans indicate that the estimated
total water usage for the landscaping will be less than the maximum applied water allowance
in accordance with water efficiency requirements.
Environmental Review
The project was reviewed in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and is proposed to be determined categorically exempt per Section 15332 of the State
CEQA Guidelines regarding infill development (Class 32). CEQA Guidelines Section 15332
states that such a categorical exemption for infill development is appropriate when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and
regulations; and
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than
five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; and
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species;
and
d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality; and
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
City staff obtained the services of Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) and Central Coast
Transportation Consultants (CCTC) to prepare a Class 32 Exemption Report (Attachment
9). Rincon performed biological, noise, air quality, and water quality assessments to confirm
the project will not result in impacts to these issue areas. Additionally, the traffic analysis
performed by CCTC confirmed the project will not result in significant impacts to the
circulation network on either a level of service (LOS) or vehicle miles travelled (VMT) metric.
Item 8.a - Page 12
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 21-001
MAY 18, 2021
PAGE 13
ADVANTAGES:
The project is proposing to develop an underutilized site to provide much needed affordable
housing units. In addition to help fill the need for affordable housing, the 63 affordable units
will result in a significant progress towards meeting the City’s low income allocation of 107
units for the sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
DISADVANTAGES:
The project site includes one side that is located adjacent to a single-family residential
neighborhood. The neighborhood may be impacted by the proposal, however revisions to
the project, specifically the reduction of units and massing of Building 3, were made to
address neighborhood compatibility concerns. The implementation of conditions of approval
are also intended to minimize adverse impacts to this neighborhood.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The project was initially scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on May 4,
2021, however, staff recommended postponing the item until May 18, 2021. A second notice
of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site, was
published in The Tribune, and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on Friday, May
14, 2021. A sign announcing the public hearing was posted at the project site on Wednesday
April 23, 2021, in accordance with City policy. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on
the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Seven (7) letters
of public comment were submitted in regards to the proposed project (Attachment 10).
Attachment:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Location Map
3. Minutes from the November 10, 2020 City Council meeting
4. ARC Minutes from the April 5, 2021 Regular Meeting
5. Assembly Bill 1763
6. Traffic Impact Analysis Report dated May 2021
7. Color and Materials Board
8. Arborist Report
9. Class 32 Exemption Report
10. Public Comment
11. Project Plans
Item 8.a - Page 13
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT MERGER
21-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-001; LOCATED
AT 700 OAK PARK BLVD.; APPLIED FOR BY HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (HASLO)
WH EREAS, the project site is approximately 2.16 acres, zoned Office Mixed-Use (OMU),
and located near the southeast corner of Oak Park Blvd. and El Camino Real, which
includes four (4) existing lots; and
WH EREAS, the applicant has filed Lot Merger 21-001 to merge four (4) lots located at the
project site; and
WH EREAS, Municipal Code Table 16.12.030 (B) requires that lot mergers be reviewed by
the Planning Commission; and
WH EREAS, the applicant has filed Conditional Use Permit 21-001 for the development of
sixty-three (63) multi-family residential units, a 1,342 square foot community room, and
1,178 square foot of leasable commercial area; and
WH EREAS, the commercial component results in the project being categorized as a mixed-
use project, for which the OMU district allows a maximum density of twenty (20) dwelling
units per acre, or 43 dwelling units on the 2.16-acre project site; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for an eighty percent (80%) density bonus pursuant to
Assembly Bill 1763 due to one hundred percent (100%) of the units proposed to be
restricted as affordable to lower income households, resulting in a maximum density of
thirty-six (36) dwelling units per acre, or 78 dwelling units on the 2.16 acre site; and
WH EREAS, the Staff Advisory Committee considered the project on April 28, 2021, and
recommended approval with conditions; and
WH EREAS, the Architectural Review Committee considered the project on April 5, 2021
and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo
Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and determined that the project
is exempt pursuant Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding in-fill development
(Class 32); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project
at a duly noticed public hearing on May 18, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation, and public
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 8.a - Page 14
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
Lot Merger Findings:
1. Merged lots should comply wherever feasible with the minimum lot size, lot width,
and lot depth requirements of the zoning district in which it is located.
The proposed project would merge four (4) lots into one (1) and the new lot would be
conforming to the OMU zoning district development standard for size, lot width, and
lot depth.
2. Adequate access and placement of easements shall be provided.
The project will provide two points of access to the newly created lot from El Camino
Real, which is adequate for the proposed use.
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the
provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this
title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the
development policies and standards of the City.
The proposed use of the site for residential development in a mixed use
project is permitted within the OMU zoning district and the project complies
with all applicable provisions of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and
Municipal Code.
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district
in which it is to be established or located. The proposed use of the site for multi-family residential development in a
mixed use project will not impair the integrity of the OMU district due to the
intent of the district to provide for multi-family residential and commercial uses
that support those residences.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed.
The site is approximately 2.16 acres of underutilized land in the OMU zoning
district and meets the development standards of the OMU zoning district and
the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. The type and intensity of the development
is allowed through the implementation of State affordable housing and density
bonus laws.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure public health and safety.
The proposed project will utilize City supplied water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services that ensure public health and safety. No aspect of the
Item 8.a - Page 15
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
proposed project is anticipated to be overly impactful to these services.
Conditions of approval developed for the project will additionally ensure public
services are minimally impacted.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity,
as it will comply conditions of approval specifically developed for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby approves Lot Merger 21-001 and Conditional Use Permit 21-001 as set forth
in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above
findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the following
roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 18th day of May, 2021
Item 8.a - Page 16
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
_______________________________
GLENN MARTIN
CHAIR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
PATRICK HOLUB
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
BILL ROBESON
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Item 8.a - Page 17
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
EXHIBIT ‘A’
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOT MERGER 21-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-001
700 OAK PARK BLVD.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. This approval authorizes the lot merger of four (4) parcels and the construction of a
mixed-use development consisting of 63 affordable housing units and 1,178 square feet
of commercial space
2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Lot Merger 21-001 and
Conditional Use Permit 21-001.
4. This application shall automatically expire on May 18, 2023 unless a building permit
is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may
apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration.
5. Development shall conform to the development standards of the Office Mixed-Use
zoning district except as otherwise approved.
6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the
Planning Commission at the meeting of May 18, 2021 and marked Exhibit B.
7. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at his/her sole expense any action
brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because
of the issuance of said approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof,
or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the
City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which
the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result
of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in
the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of
his/her obligations under this condition.
8. A copy of these conditions shall be incorporated into all construction documents.
9. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all
development consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural elevations
and landscape plan.
Item 8.a - Page 18
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 6
10. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.60 of the Development
Code. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all illegal signs shall be removed.
11. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, “Fences,
Walls and Hedges”; 16.48.120, “Performance Standards”; and 16.48.130 “Screening
Requirements”.
12. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development
plans including those specifically modified by these conditions.
13. All parking areas of five or more spaces shall have an average of one-half foot-candle
illumination per square foot of parking area for visibility and security during hours of
darkness.
14. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the
standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall
be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday, and from 9 AM to
5 PM on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or City observed
holidays. Inspections are only available Monday – Friday 7:30 AM to 4 PM.
15. At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall provide details
on any proposed exterior lighting, if applicable. The lighting plan shall include the
height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16.48.090
of the Development Code. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the
lamp nor the related reflector interior surface is visible from adjacent properties. All
lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to
adjacent properties. All lighting shall be energy efficient (e.g. LED).
16. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or
bonded for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and
irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review
and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The
landscape plan shall be in conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84
(Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) and shall include the following:
a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail;
b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical
equipment;
c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes:
i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five
feet (5’) of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs;
ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip
irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants.
iii. An automated irrigation system using smart controller (weather based)
technology.
iv. The selection of groundcover plant species shall include native plants.
Item 8.a - Page 19
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 7
v. Linear planters shall be provided in parking areas.
vi. Turf areas shall be limited in accordance with Section 16.84.040 of the
Development Code.
17. For projects approved with specific exterior building colors, the developer shall paint
a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may
not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department to verify
that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required
for this inspection.
18. All new electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building(s).
19. Buildings equipped with a fire sprinkler system shall also have a Fire Department
Connection (FDC), which shall be located adjacent to a fire access roadway, be
remote from all buildings outside the building collapse zone, and screened to the
maximum extent permitted by the Building Official or Fire Chief.
20. Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, which is no
closer than 20 feet and no greater than 100 feet with no obstructions or barriers
between the FDC and the hydrant such as roads or driveways.
21. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be located directly adjacent to or within
the respective building to which they serve, and screened to the maximum extent
feasible.
22. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment,
whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public
view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially
important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping
systems be completely screened from public view. All roof-mounted equipment which
generates noise, solid particles, odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to
be directed away from residential properties.
23. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within
the time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure
to comply with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement
action. If it is determined that violation(s) of these conditions of approval have
occurred, or are occurring, this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development
Code Section 16.08.100.
24. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.20 "Land Divisions".
25. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.64 "Dedications,
Fees and Reservations."
26. An operations and maintenance agreement shall be submitted for all drainage
Item 8.a - Page 20
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 8
facilities.
27. A building permit will not be issued until all drainage facilities are functional to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
28. Prior to issuance of a building permit, developer shall record a regulatory agreement
against the property that restricts the use of the property, for a term not less than fifty-
five (55) years from certificate of occupancy, to use as rental apartments affordable to
households earning eighty percent (80%) or less of the area median income. The City
shall have the right to review and approve the regulatory agreement prior to
recordation.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITION
29. Final design and location of the trash enclosure(s) and project lighting shall be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and approved by the Community
Development Director.
SPECIAL PROJECT CONDITIONS
30. Turning movements into and from the western driveway on El Camino Real shall be
restricted to right-in, right-out only.
31. The retaining walls on either side of the driveway(s) shall be built in accordance with
City Standard 7410.
BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
BUILDING CODES
32. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California Building
Standards Code, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande.
FIRE LANES
33. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section
22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code.
34. All fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire
Department guidelines.
FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS
35. Project shall have a fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code.
Item 8.a - Page 21
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 9
36. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department
standards and per the California Fire Code.
SECURITY KEY BOX
37. The applicant must provide an approved "security key box," per Building and Fire
Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code.
FIRE SPRINKLER
38. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and
per the California Fire Code.
39. Provide Fire apparatus access per the California Fire Code Appendix D, as adopted
by the City of Arroyo Grande.
ABANDONMENT / NON-CONFORMING
40. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such
as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions.
DEMOLITION PERMIT / RETAINING WALLS
41. A demolition permit must be applied for, approved and issued. All asbestos and lead
shall be verified if present and abated prior to permit issuance.
ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS
POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD, STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN,
AND ANNUAL STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
42. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City a:
a. Prior to a building or grading permit a Stormwater Control Plan that clearly
provides engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff
Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering
Standard 1010 Section 5.2.2.
b. Prior to final acceptance an Operations and Maintenance Plan and
Maintenance Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water
Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls
complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.2.3.
c. Annual Maintenance Notification indicating that all Water Quality Treatment,
Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls are being maintained
and are functioning as designed.
d. All reports must be completed by either a Registered Civil Engineer or
Qualified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD).
Item 8.a - Page 22
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 10
GENERAL CONDITIONS
43. The developer shall sweep streets in compliance with Standard Specifications
Section 13-4.03F.
44. For work requiring engineering inspections, working hours shall comply with Standard
Specification Section 5-1.01.
45. Provide trash enclosure(s) in compliance with Engineering Standard 9060 with
solid/rain-deflecting roof. Drain of trash enclosure to tie into the sewer interceptor or
the onsite water quality BMP.
46. Trash enclosure area(s) shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other
appropriate screening materials, and shall be reserved exclusively for dumpster and
recycling container storage. Interior vehicle travel ways shall be designed to be
capable of withstanding loads imposed by trash trucks.
47. All residential units shall be designed to mitigate impacts from non-residential project
noise, in compliance with the City’s noise regulations.
48. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the
most recent version of the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Specifications and
Engineering Standards.
49. Submit record drawings prior to occupancy or release of the Faithful Performance
Bond, whichever comes first, in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section
9.3 E. Provide One (1) set of paper prints and electronic documents on flash drive
in both AutoCAD and PDF format. AutoCAD drawings shall be in State plane
coordinates.
50. Preserve existing survey monuments and vertical control benchmarks in compliance
with Standard Specifications Section 5-1.26A.
51. Provide one (1) new vertical control survey benchmark, per City Standard, as directed
by City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
52. Public Improvement Plans, Site Civil Plans, and Maps shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department Engineering Division be separate submittal
from any vertical construction/structures building improvement plans.
53. Improvement plans must comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 1 and shall
be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State
of California and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community
Item 8.a - Page 23
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 11
Development Department. The following plan sheet shall be provided:
a. Site Plan
i. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and
storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or
alleys.
ii. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures.
iii. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the
property.
iv. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas.
v. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities.
vi. Location of 100-year flood plain and any areas of inundation within
project area.
b. Grading Plan with Cross Sections
c. Retaining Wall Plan and Profiles
d. Roadway Improvements Plan and Profiles
e. Storm Drainage Plan and Profile
f. Utilities - Water and Sewer Plan and Profile
g. Utilities – Composite Utility
h. Signing and Striping
i. Erosion Control
j. Landscape and Irrigation Plans for Public Right-of-Way
k. Tree Protection Plan
l. Details
m. Notes
n. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures
o. Other improvements as required by the Community Development Director.
(NOTE: All plan sheets must include City standard title blocks)
p. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo
unit cost.
54. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the City Engineer
including any referenced geotechnical report.
55. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the City for inspection of the required improvements.
56. Applicant shall fund outsourced plan and map check services, as required.
57. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work
within a public right-of-way (City, County and/or Caltrans).
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
58. Obtain approval from the Public Works Director prior to excavating in any street
recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director shall approve the method of repair of
Item 8.a - Page 24
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 12
any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay or type 2 slurry seal.
59. Overlay streets or place type 2 slurry seal on any roads dedicated to the City prior to
acceptance by the City. Determination whether to use overlay or slurry seal shall be
made by the Public Works Director.
60. Remove existing roadway striping and markers prior to any overlay or slurry seal work
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Use only thermoplastic roadway
striping.
61. Street shall be constructed as a partial width street to accommodate future widening
by other property owners in accordance with Section 16.68.020 of the Development
Code. The applicant shall construct a one half street section, plus a 12-foot-wide
driving lane.
62. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test, but shall not be
less than 3” of asphalt and 6” of Class II AB. Chilton St. to be constructed with a
minimum TI of 6.5.
63. Street width geometry shall comply with Engineering Standard 7010, except Chilton
St. shall have a reduced width for two (2) 12-foot travel lanes and a 6-foot sidewalk.
No parking will be allowed on the north side of Chilton St. The following streets are
designated as:
a. Local Road: Chilton St. (except as modified above)
b. Arterial: Oak Park Blvd., El Camino Real
64. Provide 24 feet of paved travel way along the Chilton St. project frontage. A two-foot
reduction in travel way may be permissible if providing the full 24 feet is infeasible,
subject to approval from the City Engineer.
65. The curb along the Chilton St. project frontage is to be red curbed with white “FIRE
LANE” lettering and Standard Fire Lane signage.
66. The pavement section along Chilton St. to be designed for a Traffic Index of 6.5 per City
Standard 7010.
67. R value tests will be required to verify pavement section.
68. Replace the two existing streetlights along the project perimeter per Caltrans Standard
ES-6A. The streetlight located at the intersection of Oak Park Blvd. and Chilton St. shall
be replaced with a Type 2 LED Lumianar and the streetlight located at the midblock
location on Chilton St. shall be replaced with Type 1 LED Lumianar. Each installation
shall use a type 15 light pole.
69. Relocate and/or replace existing traffic related signage as directed by City Inspector.
Item 8.a - Page 25
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 13
70. Update signal timing sheets for peak hours including splits, force-offs, offsets, and yellow
clearance intervals at the Oak Park Blvd./Branch St/US NB 101 On-Ramp intersection.
71. Update signal timing sheets for peak hours including splits, force-offs, offsets, yellow
clearance intervals, pedestrian clearance intervals, and reconstruct the southeast corner
ramp and traffic signal standards, as required by the City Engineer, at the Oak Park
Blvd/El Camino Real intersection.
72. Upgrade class II bike lanes on Oak Park Blvd. and El Camino Real to current Highway
Design Manual (HDM) standards and provide green stripe bike lane at all drive approach
and intersection conflicts as approved by the City Engineer.
73. Provide connections between project frontage sidewalks, internal sidewalks, and
community space.
CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK
74. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Chilton St. frontage.
75. Transition rolled curb outside project frontage on Chilton St. to standard curb and gutter
along project frontage.
76. Color any such new facilities as directed by the Community Development Director.
77. Install ADA compliant facilities at the corner of Chilton St. and Oak Park Blvd., and
verify that existing facilities are compliant with State and City Standards.
78. Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and
sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth.
79. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach
shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
80. Install new curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the entire Oak Park Blvd. frontage, and
shall include replacing the existing drive approach curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
81. Ensure a minimum sidewalk clearance of four (4) feet around poles, guy wires, and fire
hydrants.
82. Existing drain inlet on Chilton St. to be replaced with a standard curb drain inlet with a
full trash capture device per RWQCB Track 1 requirements.
83. Guards shall be installed along walkways where there is vertical grade difference of 30
inches or more between two adjacent grades, or as required by the California Building
Code.
Item 8.a - Page 26
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 14
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
84. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit one (1)
copies of the final project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or
a Water Pollution Control Plan (W PCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) requirements.
85. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
86. Drainage facilities shall be designed in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010
Section 5.1.2.
87. Submit a soils report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer
and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be
performed in accordance with the approved soils report. The date of the soils report
shall be less than 3 years old at the time of submittal.
88. Three (3) infiltration tests shall be performed across the project site, to be
determined by project engineer, in the center of paver infiltration areas. Infiltration
tests shall be performed 6 feet below finished grade, at approximately 1 foot below
the bottom of paver subgrade.
89. Infiltration paver subgrade compaction shall meet compaction requirements from
paver manufacturer in conjunction with Geotechnical Engineer recommendations.
WATER
90. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public
Works Director must grant permission to dead end water mains.
91. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines
to the structures and for landscape irrigation.
92. A Double Detector Check (DDC) backflow device is required on the water service
line to the fire sprinklers. Fire Department Connections (FDC) must be remote and
locations to be approved by the Building Official and Fire Chief.
93. The DDC shall be placed inside the building or adjacent to the building. Other
locations for the DDC shall be approved by the Director or Community Development.
94. Non-potable water is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City of Arroyo Grande
does not allow the use of hydrant meters.
95. Project shall utilize, or abandon, all existing stubbed utilities.
Item 8.a - Page 27
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 15
96. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with
Engineering Standard 6050.
SEWER
97. All sewer laterals shall comply with Engineering Standard 6810.
98. Project shall utilize, or abandon, all existing stubbed utilities.
99. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with
Engineering Standard 6050.
100. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. Laterals shall be sized for
the appropriate use, minimum 4”.
101. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be
constructed in accordance with Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards.
102. Obtain approval from the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District for the
development’s impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance.
103. Submit a will-serve letter from South County Sanitary stating that the property access
and location of trash receptacles is adequate for trash collection service.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
104. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050 which
requires that all projects that involve the addition of over 500 square feet of habitable
space shall be required to place service connections underground. All existing and
proposed utilities shall be placed underground, with the exception of new service
connections for the residences on Chilton St. directly across from the project site.
105. All new and relocated dry utilities shall be shown on a utility plan.
106. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all conditions
of approval for project shall be satisfied.
107. Public Improvement plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for
review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public
Works for approval.
108. Street lighting shall comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 3.1.2.Q.
109. Upon execution of PG&E contract, submit contract to the City. Include PG&E
schematic in the project plan set.”
Item 8.a - Page 28
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 16
110. A Public Utility Easement shall be provided for sewer, water, electrical, cable, and
telephone for all lots.
TREE PRESERVATION/TREE REMOVAL PLAN
111. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance 431 C.S., the Community Tree Ordinance.
112. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer shall submit a tree
preservation and tree removal plan to the Director of Public Works/City Arborist for
undeveloped parcels or lots with trees. The plan shall include the location, size and
species of all trees located on the lot or on adjoining lots, where development could
affect the roots or limbs of trees on adjacent property.
113. All significant trees to be removed as designated by the Director of Public Works/City
Arborist shall be replaced as indicated on Sheet L2 of Exhibit B. With the approval of
the Public Works Director, tree removal shall be mitigated by planting on site, off-site,
or payment of in-lieu fees (at the current street tree fee rate for a 15 gallon tree).
Larger trees may be required to mitigate tree removal. Prior to occupancy, all trees
shall be planted or fees paid.
114. Prior to any work on the site, all trees to remain on site shall be marked with
paint/ribbon and protected by a five (5') foot vinyl or chain link fence. The fence shall
be located at a minimum of eight (8') foot radius from the trunk of the tree.
115. All trees on the construction site to be preserved as indicated on the Tree Preservation
Plan (Sheet L1 of Exhibit B) shall be protected under the conditions of the Community
Tree Ordinance (431 C.S.) which include but are not limited to:
a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved
by the Parks and Recreation Director.
b. No storage of equipment, supplies, tools, etc., within 8' of the trunk of
any tree.
c. No grading shall occur under a trees dripline, unless approved by the
Public Works Director.
d. A five foot (5') protective fence shall be constructed a minimum of 8'
from the trunk of each tree or at the dripline, whichever distance is
greater.
e. At a minimum, all pruning shall comply with the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards and Best
Management Practices. An independent certified arborist, paid for by
the developer and selected by the Public Works Director, shall conduct
all pruning on site. The independent arborist shall report to the City’s
Arborist regarding any pruning activities.
116. Tree removal shall occur outside of bird nesting season (generally February 1 to
Item 8.a - Page 29
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 17
September 15). Any tree removal occurring during the bird nesting season shall not
occur until a survey is conducted to ensure potential impacts to nesting birds covered
by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
PUBLIC SAFETY
117. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant to submit exterior lighting plan for
Police Department approval.
118. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post accessible
parking signage, per California Building Code Section 11A and other applicable
standards.
119. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary
[or robbery] alarm system for the commercial suite per Police Department guidelines,
and pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee of ($94.00). Annual
renewal fee is $31.00.
120. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, for any parking lots available to the
public located on private lots, the developer shall post private property “No Parking”
signs in accordance with the handout available from the Police Department.
FEES AND BONDS
The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following:
121. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO PLAN SUBMITTAL
a. Plan check for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate).
b. Plan check for improvement plans (Based on an approved construction
cost estimate).
c. Permit Fee for grading plans (Based on an approved earthwork estimate).
d. Inspection Fee of subdivision or public works construction plans (Based on
an approved construction cost estimate).
e. Plan Review Fee (Based on the current Building Division fee schedule.
NOTE: The applicant is responsible to pay all fees associated with outside
plan review consultants)
122. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time of building permit issuance, involving water connection or enlargement
of an existing connection.
b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
of building permit issuance.
c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
of building permit issuance.
Item 8.a - Page 30
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 18
d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
e. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
building permit issuance.
f. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
g. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
of building permit issuance.
h. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection fee.
i. Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being
developed.
j. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current parks
development fee for each unit approved for construction (credit shall be
provided for existing houses), to be based on codes and rates in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
k. Construction Tax, the applicant shall pay a construction tax.
l. Alarm Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
development.
m. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on
codes and rates in effect at the time of development.
n. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of
development.
123. FEES TO BE PAID OR LAND DEDICATED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE
FINAL MAP/PARCEL MAP
a. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current park
development fee, and/or donate land in-lieu of, for each lot approved.
b. Park Dedication, the developer shall dedicate land for park purposes.
c. Park Improvement fee, the developer shall pay the current park
improvement fee for each lot approved.
124. Preliminary Title Report, a current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works prior to checking the map. If the property owner is a Limited
Liability Company (LLC), provide names and contact information for the individual
owners. A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the Director of Public
Works prior to recording the Map.
BONDING SURETY
125. Erosion Control, prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, all new residential
construction requires posting of a $1,200.00 performance bond for erosion control and
damage to the public right-of-way. This bond is refundable upon successful
completion of the work, less expenses incurred by the City in maintaining and/or
restoring the site.
Item 8.a - Page 31
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 19
126. The applicant shall provide bonds or other financial security for the following. All
bonds or security shall be in a form acceptable to the City, and shall be provided
prior to Public Improvement Plan and Grading Plan approval. The minimum term
for Improvement securities shall be equal to the term of the Public Improvement Plan
agreement.
a. Faithful Performance, 100% of the approved estimated cost of all
subdivision improvements.
b. Erosion Control and Landscape, 100% of the approved estimated
cost of all erosion control work during construction and the estimated
cost of all final landscaping after construction is complete. This bond
is refundable upon successful completion of the work, less expenses
uncured by the City in maintaining and/or restoring the site.
c. Labor and Materials, 50% of the approved estimated cost of all
subdivision improvements.
d. One Year Guarantee, 10% of the approved estimated cost of all public
improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the public
improvements.
Item 8.a - Page 32
EXHIBIT BItem 8.a - Page 33
Item 8.a - Page 34
Item 8.a - Page 35
Item 8.a - Page 36
Item 8.a - Page 37
Item 8.a - Page 38
Item 8.a - Page 39
Item 8.a - Page 40
Item 8.a - Page 41
Item 8.a - Page 42
Item 8.a - Page 43
Item 8.a - Page 44
Item 8.a - Page 45
Item 8.a - Page 46
Item 8.a - Page 47
Item 8.a - Page 48
Item 8.a - Page 49
Item 8.a - Page 50
Item 8.a - Page 51
Item 8.a - Page 52
Item 8.a - Page 53
Item 8.a - Page 54
Item 8.a - Page 55
Item 8.a - Page 56
Item 8.a - Page 57
Item 8.a - Page 58
Item 8.a - Page 59
Item 8.a - Page 60
ATTACHMENT 2
VIEW FROM OAK PARK INTERSECTION LOOKING NORTHWEST
Item 8.a - Page 61
VIEW FROM EL CAMINO REAL LOOKING SOUTH
VIEW FROM CHILTON ST LOOKING NORTH
Item 8.a - Page 62
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2020
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
In compliance with the State Shelter at Home Order due to the coronavirus pandemic, and as
allowed by the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, which allows for a deviation of
teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by
teleconference.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Lan George, Jimmy Paulding, Kristen Barneich, Mayor
Pro Tem Keith Storton, and Mayor Caren Ray Russom were all present.
Staff Present: City Manager Whitney McDonald, Deputy City Manager/Director of Public
Works Bill Robeson, Director of Legislative and Information Services/City
Clerk Kelly Wetmore, City Attorney Timothy Carmel, Administrative
Services Director Mike Stevens, Associate Planner Andrew Perez,
Building Official Johnathan Hurst, and Information Technology Manager
Walt Cuzick.
3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION
4. FLAG SALUTE
Council Member George led the flag salute.
5. AGENDA REVIEW
5.a. Closed Session Announcements.
None.
5.b. Ordinances Read in Title Only.
Mayor Ray Russom moved, Council Member George seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously by roll-call vote that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title
only and all further readings be waived.
6.SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6.a. Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts.
Recommended Action: Receive update, accept public comments, discuss, and provide
direction, as necessary.
City Manager McDonald provided an update on COVID-19 efforts. She reported that due to the
rise in positive COVID-19 cases, the County is on the State’s watch list and may move back to
the purple tier within the next 10 days; encouraged community members to gather responsibly,
keep wearing masks and maintain social distancing; and announced that the County is holding a
“Returning to School Safely” webinar on November 16th in anticipation of students returning to
school in-person. City Manager McDonald responded to questions from Council.
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 8.a - Page 63
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from
the consent agenda for further discussion. Hearing none, Mayor Ray Russom invited public
comment on the Consent Agenda. No public comments were received.
Action: Council Member Barneich moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.d.,
with the recommended courses of action. Mayor Pro Tem Storton seconded, and the motion
passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Barneich, Storton, Paulding, George, Ray Russom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period October 16, 2020 through
October 31, 2020.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 27, 2020,
as submitted.
8.c. Adoption of Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic.
Action: Adopted Resolution entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY
RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC”.
8.d. Consideration of Approval of a Lease Agreement for Cloud Seeding Site with the
San Luis Obispo County Water Conservation and Flood Control District.
Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to execute a Lease Agreement for Cloud
Seeding Site between the City and San Luis Obispo County Water Conservation and
Flood Control District for use of approximately 900 square feet of the City’s property
located on Huebner Lane.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
10. OLD BUSINESS:
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
11.a. Consideration of Pre-Application No. 20-004; Construction of a Proposed Mixed-
Use Development Consisting of 66 Affordable Housing Units and 1,000 Square Feet
of Commercial Space; Location – 700 Oak Park Blvd.; Applicant – Housing
Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO); Representative – Michael Burke.
Mayor Ray Russom declared a potential conflict of interest due to her husband's employment
with Architectural Firm RRM Design Group and recused herself. Mayor Pro Tem Storton took
over the meeting as presiding officer.
Item 8.a - Page 64
Minutes: City Council Meeting Page 4
Tuesday, November 10, 2020
City Manager McDonald provided an overview of the pre-application process which is intended
to provide an opportunity for the Council and public to see the conceptual project proposal and
provide comment prior to submittal of a formal application. Associate Planner Perez gave a
presentation and overview of the conceptual project. Staff responded to questions from Council.
Michael Burke, Development Director, representing HASLO, provided introductory comments and
introduced Scott Smith, HASLO Executive Director, who provided brief comments about the
conceptual project.
David Gibbs, RRM Design Group, representing the applicant, provided a presentation which
displayed the conceptual site plan and massing for a Mixed Use project consisting of 66 affordable
housing units, 1,000 square feet of commercial space, and 1,250 square feet of commercial
space; an alternate conceptual site plan which consisting of 66 affordable housing units in a
different configuration on the lot, 1,000 square feet of commercial space, and 1,500 square feet
of commercial space; and spoke about architectural character images. Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Smith
responded to questions from Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Storton invited public comment. Speaking from the public via teleconference was
Janice Reed, in support of the conceptual project and questioned if there would be a kitchen in
community center and expressed concern regarding drainage issues. No further comments were
received.
Council comments ensued regarding the conceptual mixed use project; support for HASLO’s
previous affordable housing projects; that the project was compatible with the City’s land use and
zoning regulations; that the project would bring additional affordable housing to the City and would
meet the City’s RNA numbers; that this is a good in-fill project; support for preservation of oak
trees on the site; that the project provides good access to bus, food, grocery, and exercise
facilities; that the project provides a community center and playground; that parking issues,
circulation and access are issues that can be mitigated; that the project should be bike and
pedestrian friendly, and include proper sidewalks; that drainage issues can be worked through
with CalTrans; support for agrarian architecture and acknowledgement that the design will go
through the City’s Architectural Review Committee; that gathering community and neighborhood
input is good and should continue throughout the application process; that the quality of life and
safety for residents is important, considering the project’s location to Oak Park Boulevard and the
freeway; a suggestion that the applicant work with local providers to provide free wi-fi access
within the development; a suggestion to consider solar energy, grey water recycling, and including
a community garden; that traffic flow/ingress-egress, overflow, trash enclosure locations; fire and
emergency access to the facility, and lighting should be carefully considered; concerns about
building height as it relates to the neighboring homes and that the design should be softened at
the front to reduce the massing; that the alternate conceptual design is preferred; and that
additional landscaping and trees should be encouraged where possible.
No formal action was taken. The report was received and filed.
Mayor Ray Russom returned to the meeting.
Item 8.a - Page 65
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2021
ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 E. BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CA
In compliance with the State and County Shelter at Home Orders due to the coronavirus
pandemic, and as allowed by the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, which allows for a
deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by
teleconference.
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
ARC Members:Chair Hoag, Committee Members Jon Couch, and Lori Hall were present.
Vice Chair Bruce Berlin and Committee Member Kristin Juette were absent.
City Staff Present: Associate Planner Andrew Perez, and Assistant Planner Patrick Holub
were present.
3.FLAG SALUTE
Committee Member Hall led the Flag Salute.
4.AGENDA REVIEW
None.
5.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Associate Planner Perez acknowledged a letter received for Item 8.c on the agenda.
7.CONSENT AGENDA
7. a. Committee Member Couch made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Hall to approve
the minutes of the March 15, 2021, Regular Meeting as submitted. The motion passed 3-0 on the
following voice vote:
AYES: Couch, Hall, Hoag
NOES: None
ABSENT: Berlin, Juette
8.PROJECTS
8.a CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIGN PERMIT 21-001; ONE NEW WALL SIGN
AND AWNING FOR A NEW BUSINESS; LOCATION – 201 EAST BRANCH STREET;
APPLICANT – KRISTA BANDY, HELLO VILLAGE (Holub)
Assistant Planner Holub presented the staff report, and provided information about the location,
sign regulations for the Village, project details, and the as-built improvements. He described the
proposed project including details about the size of the signs, colors, awning and compliance with
the Design Guidelines for the Historic Character Overlay District.
ATTACHMENT 4
Item 8.a - Page 66
Minutes: ARC PAGE 3
Monday, April 5, 2021
AYES: Hoag, Hall
NOES: Couch
ABSENT: Berlin, Juette
8.c. CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-001;
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 65 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND
1,178 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE; LOCATION – 700 OAK PARK BLVD.;
APPLICANT – HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (HASLO); REPRESENTATIVE
– SCOTT SMITH (Perez)
Associate Planner Perez presented the staff report, providing information about the project site,
project description, unit mix of the apartments, development standards, and density. He also
summarized comments from City Council’s review of the pre-application for the project,
highlighting the positive feedback, support for the two concessions requested, and the aspects of
the project Council wanted the applicant to pay attention to. He explained the density bonuses
applicable to the project, both locally and from State legislation. Details about site access, parking,
and landscaping were also provided.
David Gibbs, project architect, made a presentation about the project, highlighting the design
aspects of each building’s colors, materials, and rationale for the design choices. He explained
how the interface between the project and public space was considered, and how potential
impacts to the Chilton Street neighborhood were carefully considered during the project design.
He also reiterated Council’s support for the request to exceed the height limit and providing
parking at a lower ratio than what is required. He also explained how the design was partially
driven by the presence of the oak trees on site, the removal of some oak trees, the arborist report,
and the landscaping plan. Scott Smith, executive director of HASLO, addressed the Committee
in support of the project, and explained the timeframe for review as it relates to the funding for the
project.
Chair Hoag acknowledged the Committee’s receipt of a public comment letter from Ben Oakley
and opened the public comment period.
Sam Oakley, spoke in support of the project, but asked the applicant to consider the neighbors
on Chilton Street and reduce to scope of the project to minimize adverse impacts. Mr. Oakley
disagreed with the findings in the arborist report regarding the proposed removal of oak trees. He
asked for the commercial component to be restricted to a resident serving use, such as a
neighborhood market or barber.
Ben Oakley urged the applicant to upgrade the pedestrian and bicycle facilities around the project
because those facilities are lacking in the area around the project site. Mr. Oakley also asked that
the commercial component of the project be restricted to a resident serving use.
The Committee was generally supportive of the project despite its size. They recognized the need
for affordable housing, but urged the applicant to consider reducing the number of units and
massing of the structure. The Committee appreciated the architecture, especially the colors and
materials proposed.
The Committee also suggested adding more commercial space to the project because of its
location at a prominent corner of the City. The Committee concurred with the public comment that
the commercial tenant should be a neighborhood serving use. The Committee appreciated the
two-story massing of Building #3 along the Chilton Street frontage, but was still concerned the
project’s massing was too big for this site, especially with zero setback, and could negatively
impact the neighbors.
Item 8.a - Page 67
Minutes: ARC PAGE 4
Monday, April 5, 2021
Chair Hoag made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Couch, recommending conceptual
approval to the Planning Commission, with the suggestions that the applicant:
1. Consider reducing the massing of Building #3 along Chilton Street to minimize impacts
to that neighborhood; and
2. Consider addressing the massing of Building #2 along El Camino Real by adding more
articulation and having the building step back to break up the massing; and
3. Condition the project to return to the Committee prior to building permit issuance for
review of project lighting and location and function of the trash enclosures.
The motion passed 3-0 on the following voice vote:
AYES: Hoag, Couch, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Berlin, Juette
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
10. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
None.
11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
None.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:43 p.m.to a regular meeting on April 19, 2021 at 2:30 p.m.
_____________________________ _____________________________
ANDREW PEREZ WARREN HOAG
ASSOCIATE PLANNER CHAIR
(Approved at ARC Meeting _________)
Item 8.a - Page 68
Assembly Bill No. 1763
CHAPTER 666
An act to amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, relating to
housing.
[Approved by Governor October 9, 2019. Filed with Secretary
of State October 9, 2019.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1763, Chiu. Planning and zoning: density bonuses: affordable housing.
Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires a city or county
to provide a developer that proposes a housing development within the
jurisdictional boundaries of that city or county with a density bonus and
other incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing
units, or for the donation of land within the development, if the developer
agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low income,
low-income, or moderate-income households or qualifying residents and
meets other requirements. Existing law provides for the calculation of the
amount of density bonus for each type of housing development that qualifies
under these provisions.
This bill would additionally require a density bonus to be provided to a
developer who agrees to construct a housing development in which 100%
of the total units, exclusive of managers’ units, are for lower income
households, as defined. However, the bill would provide that a housing
development that qualifies for a density bonus under its provisions may
include up to 20% of the total units for moderate-income households, as
defined. The bill would also require that a housing development that meets
these criteria receive 4 incentives or concessions under the Density Bonus
Law and, if the development is located within ½ of a major transit stop, a
height increase of up to 3 additional stories or 33 feet. The bill would
generally require that the housing development receive a density bonus of
80%, but would exempt the housing development from any maximum
controls on density if it is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The
bill would prohibit a housing development that receives a waiver from any
maximum controls on density under these provisions from receiving a waiver
or reduction of development standards pursuant to existing law, other than
as expressly provided in the bill. The bill would also make various
nonsubstantive changes to the Density Bonus Law.
Existing law requires that an applicant for a density bonus agree to, and
that the city and county ensure, the continued affordability of all very low
and low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for a density bonus
for at least 55 years, as provided. Existing law requires that the rent for
93
ATTACHMENT 5
Item 8.a - Page 69
lower income density bonus units be set at an affordable rent, as defined in
specified law.
This bill, for units, including both base density and density bonus units,
in a housing development that qualifies for a density bonus under its
provisions as described above, would instead require that the rent for at
least 20% of the units in that development be set at an affordable rent,
defined as described above, and that the rent for the remaining units be set
at an amount consistent with the maximum rent levels for a housing
development that receives an allocation of state or federal low-income
housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
Existing law, upon the request of the developer, prohibits a city, county,
or city and county from requiring a vehicular parking ratio for a development
meeting the eligibility requirements under the Density Bonus Law that
exceeds specified ratios. For a development that consists solely of rental
units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable housing
cost to lower income families, as provided in specified law, and that is a
special needs housing development, as defined, existing law limits that
vehicular parking ratio to 0.3 spaces per unit.
This bill would instead, upon the request of the developer, prohibit a city,
county, or city and county from imposing any minimum vehicular parking
requirement for a development that consists solely of rental units, exclusive
of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable housing cost to lower income
families and is either a special needs housing development or a supportive
housing development, as those terms are defined.
By adding to the duties of local planning officials with respect to the
award of density bonuses, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies
and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory
provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for
a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 65915 of the Government Code, as amended by
Chapter 937 of the Statutes of 2018, is amended to read:
65915. (a) (1) When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing
development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the
jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that local government shall
comply with this section. A city, county, or city and county shall adopt an
ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be
implemented. Failure to adopt an ordinance shall not relieve a city, county,
or city and county from complying with this section.
(2) A local government shall not condition the submission, review, or
approval of an application pursuant to this chapter on the preparation of an
93
— 2 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 70
additional report or study that is not otherwise required by state law,
including this section. This subdivision does not prohibit a local government
from requiring an applicant to provide reasonable documentation to establish
eligibility for a requested density bonus, incentives or concessions, as
described in subdivision (d), waivers or reductions of development standards,
as described in subdivision (e), and parking ratios, as described in subdivision
(p).
(3) In order to provide for the expeditious processing of a density bonus
application, the local government shall do all of the following:
(A) Adopt procedures and timelines for processing a density bonus
application.
(B) Provide a list of all documents and information required to be
submitted with the density bonus application in order for the density bonus
application to be deemed complete. This list shall be consistent with this
chapter.
(C) Notify the applicant for a density bonus whether the application is
complete in a manner consistent with the timelines specified in Section
65943.
(D) (i) If the local government notifies the applicant that the application
is deemed complete pursuant to subparagraph (C), provide the applicant
with a determination as to the following matters:
(I) The amount of density bonus, calculated pursuant to subdivision (f),
for which the applicant is eligible.
(II) If the applicant requests a parking ratio pursuant to subdivision (p),
the parking ratio for which the applicant is eligible.
(III) If the applicant requests incentives or concessions pursuant to
subdivision (d) or waivers or reductions of development standards pursuant
to subdivision (e), whether the applicant has provided adequate information
for the local government to make a determination as to those incentives,
concessions, or waivers or reductions of development standards.
(ii) Any determination required by this subparagraph shall be based on
the development project at the time the application is deemed complete.
The local government shall adjust the amount of density bonus and parking
ratios awarded pursuant to this section based on any changes to the project
during the course of development.
(b) (1) A city, county, or city and county shall grant one density bonus,
the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (f), and, if requested
by the applicant and consistent with the applicable requirements of this
section, incentives or concessions, as described in subdivision (d), waivers
or reductions of development standards, as described in subdivision (e), and
parking ratios, as described in subdivision (p), when an applicant for a
housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development,
excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to
this section, that will contain at least any one of the following:
(A) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower
income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety
Code.
93
Ch. 666 — 3 — Item 8.a - Page 71
(B) Five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low
income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety
Code.
(C) A senior citizen housing development, as defined in Sections 51.3
and 51.12 of the Civil Code, or a mobilehome park that limits residency
based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Section
798.76 or 799.5 of the Civil Code.
(D) Ten percent of the total dwelling units in a common interest
development, as defined in Section 4100 of the Civil Code, for persons and
families of moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and
Safety Code, provided that all units in the development are offered to the
public for purchase.
(E) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for transitional
foster youth, as defined in Section 66025.9 of the Education Code, disabled
veterans, as defined in Section 18541, or homeless persons, as defined in
the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. Sec.
11301 et seq.). The units described in this subparagraph shall be subject to
a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years and shall be provided at the
same affordability level as very low income units.
(F) (i) Twenty percent of the total units for lower income students in a
student housing development that meets the following requirements:
(I) All units in the student housing development will be used exclusively
for undergraduate, graduate, or professional students enrolled full time at
an institution of higher education accredited by the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges or the Accrediting Commission for Community and
Junior Colleges. In order to be eligible under this subclause, the developer
shall, as a condition of receiving a certificate of occupancy, provide evidence
to the city, county, or city and county that the developer has entered into an
operating agreement or master lease with one or more institutions of higher
education for the institution or institutions to occupy all units of the student
housing development with students from that institution or institutions. An
operating agreement or master lease entered into pursuant to this subclause
is not violated or breached if, in any subsequent year, there are not sufficient
students enrolled in an institution of higher education to fill all units in the
student housing development.
(II) The applicable 20-percent units will be used for lower income
students. For purposes of this clause, “lower income students” means
students who have a household income and asset level that does not exceed
the level for Cal Grant A or Cal Grant B award recipients as set forth in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 69432.7 of the Education Code.
The eligibility of a student under this clause shall be verified by an affidavit,
award letter, or letter of eligibility provided by the institution of higher
education that the student is enrolled in, as described in subclause (I), or by
the California Student Aid Commission that the student receives or is eligible
for financial aid, including an institutional grant or fee waiver, from the
college or university, the California Student Aid Commission, or the federal
government shall be sufficient to satisfy this subclause.
93
— 4 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 72
(III) The rent provided in the applicable units of the development for
lower income students shall be calculated at 30 percent of 65 percent of the
area median income for a single-room occupancy unit type.
(IV) The development will provide priority for the applicable affordable
units for lower income students experiencing homelessness. A homeless
service provider, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section
103577 of the Health and Safety Code, or institution of higher education
that has knowledge of a person’s homeless status may verify a person’s
status as homeless for purposes of this subclause.
(ii) For purposes of calculating a density bonus granted pursuant to this
subparagraph, the term “unit” as used in this section means one rental bed
and its pro rata share of associated common area facilities. The units
described in this subparagraph shall be subject to a recorded affordability
restriction of 55 years.
(G) One hundred percent of the total units, exclusive of a manager’s unit
or units, are for lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5
of the Health and Safety Code, except that up to 20 percent of the total units
in the development may be for moderate-income households, as defined in
Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) For purposes of calculating the amount of the density bonus pursuant
to subdivision (f), an applicant who requests a density bonus pursuant to
this subdivision shall elect whether the bonus shall be awarded on the basis
of subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), or (G) of paragraph (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section, “total units,” “total dwelling units,”
or “total rental beds” does not include units added by a density bonus
awarded pursuant to this section or any local law granting a greater density
bonus.
(c) (1) (A) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and
county shall ensure, the continued affordability of all very low and
low-income rental units that qualified the applicant for the award of the
density bonus for 55 years or a longer period of time if required by the
construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance
program, or rental subsidy program.
(B) (i) Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii), rents for the lower
income density bonus units shall be set at an affordable rent, as defined in
Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (G)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), rents for all units in the development,
including both base density and density bonus units, shall be as follows:
(I) The rent for at least 20 percent of the units in the development shall
be set at an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and
Safety Code.
(II) The rent for the remaining units in the development shall be set at
an amount consistent with the maximum rent levels for a housing
development that receives an allocation of state or federal low-income
housing tax credits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.
93
Ch. 666 — 5 — Item 8.a - Page 73
(2) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and county
shall ensure that, the initial occupant of all for-sale units that qualified the
applicant for the award of the density bonus are persons and families of
very low, low, or moderate income, as required, and that the units are offered
at an affordable housing cost, as that cost is defined in Section 50052.5 of
the Health and Safety Code. The local government shall enforce an equity
sharing agreement, unless it is in conflict with the requirements of another
public funding source or law. The following apply to the equity sharing
agreement:
(A) Upon resale, the seller of the unit shall retain the value of any
improvements, the downpayment, and the seller’s proportionate share of
appreciation. The local government shall recapture any initial subsidy, as
defined in subparagraph (B), and its proportionate share of appreciation, as
defined in subparagraph (C), which amount shall be used within five years
for any of the purposes described in subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of
the Health and Safety Code that promote home ownership.
(B) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government’s initial
subsidy shall be equal to the fair market value of the home at the time of
initial sale minus the initial sale price to the moderate-income household,
plus the amount of any downpayment assistance or mortgage assistance. If
upon resale the market value is lower than the initial market value, then the
value at the time of the resale shall be used as the initial market value.
(C) For purposes of this subdivision, the local government’s proportionate
share of appreciation shall be equal to the ratio of the local government’s
initial subsidy to the fair market value of the home at the time of initial sale.
(3) (A) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or any other
incentives or concessions under this section if the housing development is
proposed on any property that includes a parcel or parcels on which rental
dwelling units are or, if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished
in the five-year period preceding the application, have been subject to a
recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable
to persons and families of lower or very low income; subject to any other
form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its
police power; or occupied by lower or very low income households, unless
the proposed housing development replaces those units, and either of the
following applies:
(i) The proposed housing development, inclusive of the units replaced
pursuant to this paragraph, contains affordable units at the percentages set
forth in subdivision (b).
(ii) Each unit in the development, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units,
is affordable to, and occupied by, either a lower or very low income
household.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “replace” shall mean either of
the following:
(i) If any dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) are occupied on
the date of application, the proposed housing development shall provide at
least the same number of units of equivalent size to be made available at
93
— 6 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 74
affordable rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and
families in the same or lower income category as those households in
occupancy. If the income category of the household in occupancy is not
known, it shall be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households
occupied these units in the same proportion of lower income renter
households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined
by the most recently available data from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy database. For unoccupied dwelling units described in subparagraph
(A) in a development with occupied units, the proposed housing development
shall provide units of equivalent size to be made available at affordable rent
or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families in the
same or lower income category as the last household in occupancy. If the
income category of the last household in occupancy is not known, it shall
be rebuttably presumed that lower income renter households occupied these
units in the same proportion of lower income renter households to all renter
households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently
available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy database.
All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded
up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling
units, these units shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for
at least 55 years. If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units
replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2).
(ii) If all dwelling units described in subparagraph (A) have been vacated
or demolished within the five-year period preceding the application, the
proposed housing development shall provide at least the same number of
units of equivalent size as existed at the highpoint of those units in the
five-year period preceding the application to be made available at affordable
rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families
in the same or lower income category as those persons and families in
occupancy at that time, if known. If the incomes of the persons and families
in occupancy at the highpoint is not known, it shall be rebuttably presumed
that low-income and very low income renter households occupied these
units in the same proportion of low-income and very low income renter
households to all renter households within the jurisdiction, as determined
by the most recently available data from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy database. All replacement calculations resulting in fractional units
shall be rounded up to the next whole number. If the replacement units will
be rental dwelling units, these units shall be subject to a recorded
affordability restriction for at least 55 years. If the proposed development
is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be subject to paragraph (2).
(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), for any dwelling unit described
in subparagraph (A) that is or was, within the five-year period preceding
the application, subject to a form of rent or price control through a local
government’s valid exercise of its police power and that is or was occupied
93
Ch. 666 — 7 — Item 8.a - Page 75
by persons or families above lower income, the city, county, or city and
county may do either of the following:
(i) Require that the replacement units be made available at affordable
rent or affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, low-income persons or
families. If the replacement units will be rental dwelling units, these units
shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years.
If the proposed development is for-sale units, the units replaced shall be
subject to paragraph (2).
(ii) Require that the units be replaced in compliance with the jurisdiction’s
rent or price control ordinance, provided that each unit described in
subparagraph (A) is replaced. Unless otherwise required by the jurisdiction’s
rent or price control ordinance, these units shall not be subject to a recorded
affordability restriction.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, “equivalent size” means that the
replacement units contain at least the same total number of bedrooms as the
units being replaced.
(E) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an applicant seeking a density
bonus for a proposed housing development if the applicant’s application
was submitted to, or processed by, a city, county, or city and county before
January 1, 2015.
(d) (1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may
submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the specific
incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section,
and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The
city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive
requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes
a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual
cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable
housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code,
or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact,
as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon
public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property
that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific,
adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to
low-income and moderate-income households.
(C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal
law.
(2) The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or
concessions:
(A) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 10
percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 5 percent for
very low income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families
of moderate income in a common interest development.
93
— 8 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 76
(B) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 20
percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 10 percent
for very low income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and
families of moderate income in a common interest development.
(C) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 30
percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent
for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and
families of moderate income in a common interest development.
(D) Four incentives or concessions for projects meeting the criteria of
subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). If the project is located
within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b)
of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, the applicant shall also
receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet.
(3) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or
city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or
concession. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a requested density
bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall
award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Nothing in
this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to grant
an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defined
in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety,
or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this
subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to grant an
incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact on any real
property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.
The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying
out this section that shall include legislative body approval of the means of
compliance with this section.
(4) The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof
for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.
(e) (1) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any
development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the
construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the
densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.
Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit to a city, county, or city
and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards
that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a
development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with
the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request
a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the
refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation
of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require
a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver
or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph
(2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical
93
Ch. 666 — 9 — Item 8.a - Page 77
environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision
shall be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce
development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real
property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or
to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal
law.
(2) A proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards
pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce nor increase the number of
incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to
subdivision (d).
(3) A housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum
controls on density pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (D) of paragraph
(3) of subdivision (f) shall not be eligible for, and shall not receive, a waiver
or reduction of development standards pursuant to this subdivision, other
than as expressly provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of
subdivision (d) and clause (ii) of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of
subdivision (f).
(f) For the purposes of this chapter, “density bonus” means a density
increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density
as of the date of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and
county, or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase,
including, but not limited to, no increase in density. The amount of density
increase to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount
by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage
established in subdivision (b).
(1) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as
follows:
Percentage Density
Bonus
Percentage Low-Income Units
20 10
21.5 11
23 12
24.5 13
26 14
27.5 15
30.5 17
32 18
33.5 19
35 20
(2) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as
follows:
93
— 10 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 78
Percentage Density Bonus Percentage Very Low Income Units
20 5
22.5 6
25 7
27.5 8
30 9
32.5 10
35 11
(3) (A) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph
(C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 20 percent
of the number of senior housing units.
(B) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (E)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 20 percent
of the number of the type of units giving rise to a density bonus under that
subparagraph.
(C) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (F)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be 35 percent
of the student housing units.
(D) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (G)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the following shall apply:
(i) Except as otherwise provided in clause (ii), the density bonus shall
be 80 percent of the number of units for lower income households.
(ii) If the housing development is located within one-half mile of a major
transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public
Resources Code, the city, county, or city and county shall not impose any
maximum controls on density.
(4) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (D)
of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as
follows:
Percentage Density Bonus Percentage Moderate-Income Units
5 10
6 11
7 12
8 13
9 14
10 15
11 16
12 17
13 18
14 19
15 20
16 21
17 22
18 23
19 24
93
Ch. 666 — 11 — Item 8.a - Page 79
20 25
21 26
22 27
23 28
24 29
25 30
26 31
27 32
28 33
29 34
30 35
31 36
32 37
33 38
34 39
35 40
(5) All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded
up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not
require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan
amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other
discretionary approval.
(g) (1) When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map, parcel map,
or other residential development approval donates land to a city, county, or
city and county in accordance with this subdivision, the applicant shall be
entitled to a 15-percent increase above the otherwise maximum allowable
residential density for the entire development, as follows:
Percentage Density Bonus Percentage Very Low Income
15 10
16 11
17 12
18 13
19 14
20 15
21 16
22 17
23 18
24 19
25 20
26 21
27 22
28 23
29 24
30 25
31 26
32 27
93
— 12 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 80
33 28
34 29
35 30
(2) This increase shall be in addition to any increase in density mandated
by subdivision (b), up to a maximum combined mandated density increase
of 35 percent if an applicant seeks an increase pursuant to both this
subdivision and subdivision (b). All density calculations resulting in
fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Nothing in
this subdivision shall be construed to enlarge or diminish the authority of
a city, county, or city and county to require a developer to donate land as a
condition of development. An applicant shall be eligible for the increased
density bonus described in this subdivision if all of the following conditions
are met:
(A) The applicant donates and transfers the land no later than the date
of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential
development application.
(B) The developable acreage and zoning classification of the land being
transferred are sufficient to permit construction of units affordable to very
low income households in an amount not less than 10 percent of the number
of residential units of the proposed development.
(C) The transferred land is at least one acre in size or of sufficient size
to permit development of at least 40 units, has the appropriate general plan
designation, is appropriately zoned with appropriate development standards
for development at the density described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (c)
of Section 65583.2, and is or will be served by adequate public facilities
and infrastructure.
(D) The transferred land shall have all of the permits and approvals, other
than building permits, necessary for the development of the very low income
housing units on the transferred land, not later than the date of approval of
the final subdivision map, parcel map, or residential development application,
except that the local government may subject the proposed development to
subsequent design review to the extent authorized by subdivision (i) of
Section 65583.2 if the design is not reviewed by the local government before
the time of transfer.
(E) The transferred land and the affordable units shall be subject to a
deed restriction ensuring continued affordability of the units consistent with
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (c), which shall be recorded on the
property at the time of the transfer.
(F) The land is transferred to the local agency or to a housing developer
approved by the local agency. The local agency may require the applicant
to identify and transfer the land to the developer.
(G) The transferred land shall be within the boundary of the proposed
development or, if the local agency agrees, within one-quarter mile of the
boundary of the proposed development.
93
Ch. 666 — 13 — Item 8.a - Page 81
(H) A proposed source of funding for the very low income units shall be
identified not later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map,
parcel map, or residential development application.
(h) (1) When an applicant proposes to construct a housing development
that conforms to the requirements of subdivision (b) and includes a childcare
facility that will be located on the premises of, as part of, or adjacent to, the
project, the city, county, or city and county shall grant either of the following:
(A) An additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of
residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet
in the childcare facility.
(B) An additional concession or incentive that contributes significantly
to the economic feasibility of the construction of the childcare facility.
(2) The city, county, or city and county shall require, as a condition of
approving the housing development, that the following occur:
(A) The childcare facility shall remain in operation for a period of time
that is as long as or longer than the period of time during which the density
bonus units are required to remain affordable pursuant to subdivision (c).
(B) Of the children who attend the childcare facility, the children of very
low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate
income shall equal a percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage
of dwelling units that are required for very low income households, lower
income households, or families of moderate income pursuant to subdivision
(b).
(3) Notwithstanding any requirement of this subdivision, a city, county,
or city and county shall not be required to provide a density bonus or
concession for a childcare facility if it finds, based upon substantial evidence,
that the community has adequate childcare facilities.
(4) “Childcare facility,” as used in this section, means a child daycare
facility other than a family daycare home, including, but not limited to,
infant centers, preschools, extended daycare facilities, and schoolage
childcare centers.
(i) “Housing development,” as used in this section, means a development
project for five or more residential units, including mixed-use developments.
For the purposes of this section, “housing development” also includes a
subdivision or common interest development, as defined in Section 4100
of the Civil Code, approved by a city, county, or city and county and consists
of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to
substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to
residential use or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily
dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result
of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units.
For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the residential units shall be
on contiguous sites that are the subject of one development application, but
do not have to be based upon individual subdivision maps or parcels. The
density bonus shall be permitted in geographic areas of the housing
development other than the areas where the units for the lower income
households are located.
93
— 14 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 82
(j) (1) The granting of a concession or incentive shall not require or be
interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local
coastal plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other discretionary
approval. For purposes of this subdivision, “study” does not include
reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or
incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the
definition set forth in subdivision (k). This provision is declaratory of
existing law.
(2) Except as provided in subdivisions (d) and (e), the granting of a
density bonus shall not require or be interpreted to require the waiver of a
local ordinance or provisions of a local ordinance unrelated to development
standards.
(k) For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any
of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning
code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the
minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards
Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of
Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a
reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of
vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in
identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing
costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for
rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project
if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of
the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other
land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned
development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer
or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual
cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section
50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units
to be set as specified in subdivision (c).
(l) Subdivision (k) does not limit or require the provision of direct
financial incentives for the housing development, including the provision
of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and county, or the waiver
of fees or dedication requirements.
(m) This section does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the
effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20
(commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code). Any
density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development
standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under this
section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section
and Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources
Code.
93
Ch. 666 — 15 — Item 8.a - Page 83
(n) If permitted by local ordinance, nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit a city, county, or city and county from granting a
density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development
that meets the requirements of this section or from granting a proportionately
lower density bonus than what is required by this section for developments
that do not meet the requirements of this section.
(o) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Development standard” includes a site or construction condition,
including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a
floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that
applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan
element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy,
resolution, or regulation.
(2) “Maximum allowable residential density” means the density allowed
under the zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan, or, if
a range of density is permitted, means the maximum allowable density for
the specific zoning range and land use element of the general plan applicable
to the project. If the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is
inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use element of the
general plan, the general plan density shall prevail.
(p) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), upon the
request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not require
a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, of a
development meeting the criteria of subdivisions (b) and (c), that exceeds
the following ratios:
(A) Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
(B) Two to three bedrooms: two onsite parking spaces.
(C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes the
maximum percentage of low-income or very low income units provided for
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (f) and is located within one-half
mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155
of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major
transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer,
a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio,
inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per
bedroom. For purposes of this subdivision, a development shall have
unobstructed access to a major transit stop if a resident is able to access the
major transit stop without encountering natural or constructed impediments.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development consists solely of
rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable
housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section 50052.5 of
the Health and Safety Code, then, upon the request of the developer, a city,
county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio,
inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds the following
ratios:
93
— 16 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 84
(A) If the development is located within one-half mile of a major transit
stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources
Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the
development, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit.
(B) If the development is a for-rent housing development for individuals
who are 62 years of age or older that complies with Sections 51.2 and 51.3
of the Civil Code, the ratio shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit. The
development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access,
within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight
times per day.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (8), if a development consists
solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an
affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section
50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and the development is either a
special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the
Health and Safety Code, or a supportive housing development, as defined
in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code, then, upon the request
of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose any
minimum vehicular parking requirement. A development that is a special
needs housing development shall have either paratransit service or
unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that
operates at least eight times per day.
(5) If the total number of parking spaces required for a development is
other than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next
whole number. For purposes of this subdivision, a development may provide
onsite parking through tandem parking or uncovered parking, but not through
onstreet parking.
(6) This subdivision shall apply to a development that meets the
requirements of subdivisions (b) and (c), but only at the request of the
applicant. An applicant may request parking incentives or concessions
beyond those provided in this subdivision pursuant to subdivision (d).
(7) This subdivision does not preclude a city, county, or city and county
from reducing or eliminating a parking requirement for development projects
of any type in any location.
(8) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3), if a city, county, city and
county, or an independent consultant has conducted an areawide or
jurisdictionwide parking study in the last seven years, then the city, county,
or city and county may impose a higher vehicular parking ratio not to exceed
the ratio described in paragraph (1), based upon substantial evidence found
in the parking study, that includes, but is not limited to, an analysis of parking
availability, differing levels of transit access, walkability access to transit
services, the potential for shared parking, the effect of parking requirements
on the cost of market-rate and subsidized developments, and the lower rates
of car ownership for low-income and very low income individuals, including
seniors and special needs individuals. The city, county, or city and county
shall pay the costs of any new study. The city, county, or city and county
93
Ch. 666 — 17 — Item 8.a - Page 85
shall make findings, based on a parking study completed in conformity with
this paragraph, supporting the need for the higher parking ratio.
(9) A request pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce nor increase
the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled
pursuant to subdivision (d).
(q) Each component of any density calculation, including base density
and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded
up to the next whole number. The Legislature finds and declares that this
provision is declaratory of existing law.
(r) This chapter shall be interpreted liberally in favor of producing the
maximum number of total housing units.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6
of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because a local agency or
school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act,
within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
O
93
— 18 — Ch. 666 Item 8.a - Page 86
.
700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report
Central Coast Transportation Consulting
895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
Morro Bay, CA 93442
(805) 316-0101
May 2021
Prepared For: City of Arroyo Grande
ATTACHMENT 6
Item 8.a - Page 87
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
2700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Introduction
Executive Summary
This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts of the proposed redevelopment at 700 Oak
Park Boulevard in the City of Arroyo Grande. The proposed project includes 63 units of affordable
housing, 1,000 square feet of commercial space, and community space. The project would generate
422 new vehicle trips per weekday, including 22 AM peak hour trips and 29 PM peak hour trips.
The site plan is shown in shown in Figure 1. The following sections summarize the findings and
recommendations detailed in this report.
Intersection Operations - The following improvements are recommended under Existing Conditions
with and without the project to maintain LOS C operations:
• Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1): Update signal timing sheets for peak
hours including splits, force-offs, offsets, and yellow clearance intervals.
• Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real (#2): Update signal timing sheets for peak hours including
splits, force-offs, offsets, yellow clearance intervals, pedestrian clearance intervals. Reconstruct
southeast corner ramps and traffic signal standards as needed and consider separating
pedestrian push buttons on southeast corner, adding audible pedestrian signals, restriping the
eastern crosswalk as a ladder with an advanced stop bar, and replacing older mast arm signs.
Under Cumulative Conditions, in addition to signal timing updates for the peak hours,
protected/permissive left turn phasing is needed on the Oak Park Boulevard approaches to the Oak
Park Boulevard/Branch Street/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1) intersection to maintain LOS C operations.
The recommended phasing is consistent with the Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic
Analysis. Note that the project is expected to add fewer than ten peak hour trips to this intersection.
Site Access and On-Site Circulation Recommendations - The following are recommended based
on review of the current site plans shown on Figure 1:
• Restrict the western driveway access on El Camino Real to right-in-right-out only due to
proximity to the traffic signal influence area.
• Modify the existing retaining walls on either side of the driveway(s) to meet the City Standard
Plan 7410.
• Upgrade class II bike lanes on Oak Park Boulevard and El Camino Real to current Highway
Design Manual (HDM) standards as needed.
• Provide connections between project frontage sidewalks, internal sidewalks, and community
space.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) - The project’s VMT was analyzed using three different
methodologies all resulting in a less-than-significant impact to VMT. The project would generate VMT
below the thresholds recommended by the state and the draft City Guidelines for residential uses.
Item 8.a - Page 88
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
3700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Introduction
Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 VMT Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 6
3.0 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Existing Plus Project Conditions ..............................................................................................11
5.0 Cumulative Conditions ...............................................................................................................15
6.0 References .....................................................................................................................................17
Figure 1: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Volumes and Lane Configurations .................................................................................................10
Table 1: Regional VMT Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 6
Table 2: Project TAZ VMT Analysis ................................................................................................................ 6
Table 3: Project VMT Impact Analysis............................................................................................................. 7
Table 4: Existing Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................................. 9
Table 5: Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................................12
Table 6: Project Trip Generation .....................................................................................................................12
Table 7: Existing and Existing Plus Project Levels of Service ....................................................................13
Table 8: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Levels of Service .........................................................15
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B: Intersection Calculation Sheets
Item 8.a - Page 89
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
4700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Introduction
1.0 Introduction
This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts of the proposed 700 Oak Park Boulevard
redevelopment project in the City of Arroyo Grande. The proposed project includes 63 units of
affordable housing, 1,000 square feet of commercial space, and community space. The project site plan
is shown on Figure 1.
The following intersections were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hour:
1. Oak Park Boulevard/Branch Street/US 101 Northbound On-Ramp
2. Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real
The level of service (LOS) and queuing are reported for each of the study intersections. The
intersections were evaluated under the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions reflects recent traffic counts and the existing transportation network.
• Existing Plus Project adds Project-generated traffic to Existing Conditions volumes.
• Cumulative Conditions represents future traffic conditions reflective of the buildout of land
uses in the area, not including the proposed Project.
• Cumulative Plus Project represents future traffic conditions reflective of the buildout of
land uses in the area, including the proposed Project.
Each scenario is described in more detail in the appropriate chapter.
Item 8.a - Page 90
Figure 1: Site Plan
700 Oak Park
Item 8.a - Page 91
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
6700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report VMT Analysis
2.0 VMT Analysis
The City of Arroyo Grande published draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines
(January 2021) and thresholds for evaluating vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in response to SB 743. The
draft Guidelines are expected to be refined. The analysis below was developed with the SLOCOG
Travel Demand Model (TDM) and is consistent with guidance from the state Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) as well as the intent of the City’s draft Guidelines.
The project shares a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a variety of other uses. Therefore, it was
necessary to conduct model runs with and without the project to determine the project effects. No
changes were made to the commercial uses in the TAZ to present a conservative analysis. Table 1
summarizes the regional VMT with and without the project.
Table 1: Regional VMT Analysis
The addition of the project reduces total regional VMT and increases total regional residential VMT.
Table 2 summarizes the VMT generated by the TAZ that includes the project.
Table 2: Project TAZ VMT Analysis
The TDM shows the project adding 537 daily trips, 2,079 total VMT, and 1,312 residential VMT. These
results are used for the impact determination summarized in Table 3.
Employees Population
1 Households VMT
2
VMT/
Capita
2015 No Project 8,991,742 115,188 236,002 92,914 4,495,929 19.1
2015 With Project 8,985,935 115,188 236,169 92,980 4,497,922 19.0
Change from No Project -5,807 0 167 66 1,993 -0.1
Source: SLOCOG TDM, CCTC, 2021
2. Residential VMT is calculated consistent with OPR Guidance as the sum of home-based productions.
Regional VMT Analysis
Scenario
Residential
Regional
Total VMT
Demographics
1. Population calculated consistent with Draft TIA Guidelines which specify 2.54 persons per household.
Scenario Daily Trips Total VMT Residential VMT
2015 No Project 1,466 4,547 1,817
2015 With Project 2,003 6,626 3,130
Change from No Project 1 537 2,079 1,313
1. Project TAZ (#118) includes other existing uses so project effect is the delta or change from no project.
Source: SLOCOG TDM, CCTC, 2021
Project TAZ VMT Analysis
Item 8.a - Page 92
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
7700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report VMT Analysis
Table 3: Project VMT Impact Analysis
The project would generate VMT below the thresholds recommended by OPR and the draft City
Guidelines for residential uses. In addition, OPR guidance indicates that redevelopment projects that
reduce total regional VMT like the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to VMT.
OPR guidance also notes that “a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be
a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT.”
All three of the potential VMT analysis approaches result in a less-than-significant impact to VMT.
Regional Residential VMT/Capita 19.1
Residential VMT per Capita Threshold1 16.2
Project Residential VMT 1,313
Project Population 167
Project Residential VMT per Capita 7.9
Significant Impact No
1. Calculated as 85% of regional residential VMT/capita.
Source: SLOCOG TDM, CCTC, 2021
Project VMT Impact Analysis
Item 8.a - Page 93
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
8700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Existing Conditions
3.0 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing transportation system and operating conditions in the study area.
3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
The existing roadways in the vicinity of the project include:
• US 101 is a four-lane freeway serving intercity and regional travel.
• Oak Park Boulevard is a four lane primary arterial. There are four travel lanes within the project
vicinity, class II bikeways, and intermittent sidewalks. The speed limit is 40-mph north of El
Camino Real and 25-mph south of El Camino Real.
• El Camino Real is a two lane arterial paralleling US 101 to the south. There are two travel lanes
within the project vicinity, Class II bikeways, and sidewalks on the south side. The speed limit
is 30-mph west of Oak Park Boulevard and 45-mph east of Oak Park Boulevard.
• West Branch Street is a two lane arterial paralleling US 101 to the north. Within the project
vicinity, there are two travel lanes, class II bike lanes, sidewalks on the north side, and the
speed limit is 40-mph.
The existing study intersections are described below:
• Oak Park Boulevard/Branch Street/US 101 Northbound On-Ramp (#1): Existing traffic
signal with marked crosswalk and pedestrian signals on the east leg only.
• Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real (#2):Existing traffic signal with marked crosswalks and
pedestrian signals on the east and south legs only.
Both traffic signals are maintained by the City of Arroyo Grande.
3.1.1 Transit
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) operates fixed route transit service in the study
area. RTA Routes 27 and 28 provide service between Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano with
hourly headways on weekdays and reduced hours on weekends. The closest bus stops to the project
site are on Oak Park Boulevard at Newport Avenue, East Branch Street at Oak Park Boulevard, and
James Way at Oak Park Boulevard all within a third of a mile of the project site. Connections to other
routes can be made at the Ramona Garden Park stop.
3.2 EXISTING OPERATIONS
Weekday peak hour vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle turning movement counts were collected from 7-
9 AM and 2-6 PM in February 2021 at the following locations:
1. Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real
2. Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 Northbound On-Ramp
The turning movement counts are included as Appendix A. A field visit was also conducted to observe
existing traffic operations, roadway conditions, speed limits, and signal timing. The existing signal
timing sheets were also obtained from the City of Arroyo Grande.
The 2021 turning movement counts were compared to the volumes collected for the Circulation
Element in November 2019. The 2019 total entering intersection volumes were approximately 21%
and 7% higher than the 2021 volumes in the AM and PM peak hour, respectively.
Item 8.a - Page 94
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
9700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Existing Conditions
Existing (No Project) intersection volumes were developed using the 2019 counts consistent with the
Circulation Study. The 2021 and Existing (No Project) intersection volumes are shown in Figure 2.
The 2021 intersection peak hour factors (PHF) were used.
The intersections were analyzed using the Synchro 10 software packages with Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) level of service (LOS) methodologies. Table 4 summarizes the existing LOS at the
study intersections. The LOS worksheets are included as Appendix B.
Table 4: Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Currently, the intersection of Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 Northbound On-Ramp (#1) operates
at LOS E during the AM peak hour with the existing signal timing. In addition, the 95th percentile
queue length for the eastbound left on El Camino Real and the westbound left on Branch Street would
exceed the turn pocket storage in one or more peak hours. The 2021 counts resulted in the same LOS
C operations except Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 Northbound On-Ramp (#1) operated at LOS
D during the AM peak hour.
Note that the signal timing sheets provided by the City currently show the vehicle extension values
where the coordination force-off values should and likely do not match what is in the controller. Signal
timing is discussed in more detail under Existing Plus Project Conditions.
Intersection Control Delay1 LOS
AM 55.5 E
PM 25.0 C
AM 23.4 C
PM 21.3 C
1. HCM average control delay in seconds/vehicle. HCM 6th Edition used for #1. HCM 2000 used for #2 due to phasing.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
Note: Unacceptable operations shown in bold text.
2. Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real
1. Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 NB On-Ramp
Signal
Signal
Existing (2019)Peak
Hour
LOS
Standard
C
C
Item 8.a - Page 95
700 Oak Park
Figure 2: Volumes and Lane Configurations
Legend:
x - Study Intersection - AM(PM) Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
- Project Site
- Traffic Signal
2.
1.1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Cumulative No Project
Volumes
Cumulative Plus Project
Volumes
Existing Lane
Configurations
February 2021 Counts
(not used 2019>2021)
Existing No Project
Volumes (2019)
Existing Plus Project
Volumes
1
2
Item 8.a - Page 96
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
11700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Existing Plus Project Conditions
4.0 Existing Plus Project Conditions
This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation network.
4.1 ARROYO GRANDE GUIDELINES
In addition to the CEQA required VMT analysis for the project, the draft City Guidelines state that
the project would also have a significant impact if one of the following occurs:
• Introduction of geometric or operational elements which are inconsistent with adopted local
and state design standards & policies.
• Project traffic exceeds intersection turn pocket storage length(s) or exacerbates already
exceeded turn pocket storage lengths.
• Project traffic added to intersections identified in the City’s adopted Local Roadway Safety
Plan and found to potentially exacerbate the identified collision pattern.
4.2 PROJECT TRAFFIC
The amount of project traffic affecting the study locations is estimated in three steps: trip generation,
trip distribution, and trip assignment. Trip generation refers to the total number of trips generated by
the site. Trip distribution identifies the general origins and destination of these trips, and trip
assignment specifies the routes taken to reach these origins and destinations.
4.2.1 Trip Generation
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition was used to
estimate the trip generation. Credits were applied for existing uses and pass-by trips were applied to
the retail land use. Table 5 summarizes the project trip generation.
Item 8.a - Page 97
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
12700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Existing Plus Project Conditions
Table 5: Trip Generation
The project would generate 422 new vehicle trips per weekday, including 22 AM peak hour trips and
29 PM peak hour trips.
4.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution and assignment for the project trips were estimated using the SLOCOG Travel
Demand Model and local knowledge. Table 6 summarizes the project trip distribution.
Table 6: Project Trip Generation
The draft TIAR (CCTC, April 2021) analyzed 65 dwelling units. With rounding and trips distributed
to El Camino Real south of the project site, the peak hour trips through the study intersections
remained consistent.
Daily
Land Use Size Total In Out Total In Out Total
Residential1 63 DU 461 7 2229221335
Commercial/Retail2 1,000SF 38 101224
499 8 2230241539
Existing Residential 3 (1) DU -9 0-1-1-10-1
Existing Office 4 (6,000) SF -58 -6-1-7-1-6-7
Commercial/Retail 2,5 -10 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2
422 2 20 22 21 8 29Net New Vehicle Trips
Project Trip Generation
SF = Square Feet; ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Subtotal
1. ITE Land Use Code #220, Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise). Average rates used.
2. ITE Land Use Code #820, Shopping Center. Average rates used. AM pass-by not given; PM pass-by 34%.
5. PM peak hour pass-by trips multiplied by a factor of 5 to determine daily pass-by trips. Internal capture was not
applied due to size of development (<1000,000 SF).
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed. and Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Ed., 2017; CCTC, 2021.
Pass-by Trips
3. ITE Land Use Code #210, Single-Family Detached Housing. Average rates used.
4. ITE Land Use Code #710, General Office Building. Average rates used.
Location % In % Out
Oak Park Blvd (North) 10% 10%
US 101 NB On-Ramp - 15%
West Branch St 15% 10%
El Camino Real (West) 20% 10%
El Camino Real (East) 30% 30%
Oak Park Blvd (South) 25% 25%
Total 100% 100%
Project Trip Distribution
Source: SLOCOG TDM & CCTC, 2021.
Item 8.a - Page 98
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
13700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Existing Plus Project Conditions
4.3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Table 7 summarizes the intersection LOS under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions with
existing and updated signal timing. The intersection volumes are shown in Figure 2 and the LOS
worksheets are included as Appendix B.
Table 7: Existing and Existing Plus Project Levels of Service
At Oak Park Road/Branch Street/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1) the project adds more traffic to non-
impacted movements than impacted movements during the AM peak hour, decreasing the overall
delay.
As previously noted, the signal timing sheets provided do not match what is currently in the controller.
Maintaining the 90 second coordinated cycle length during the AM and PM peak hour with updated
force-off and offset values would result in LOS C or better operations under Existing Plus Project
Conditions. No turn lane 95th percentile queue lengths would exceed the available storage with the
updated timing except the eastbound left and southbound right turn lanes at Oak Park Blvd/El Camino
Real (#2). Both can be accommodated in the adjacent travel lane and the project does not add traffic
to these movements. The following intersection and timing improvements are recommended:
• Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1):
o Update signal timing sheets with separate AM and PM 90 second cycle length
coordination plans. Add missing values from controller.
o Increase yellow clearance interval for left turn phases to 3.2 seconds consistent with
Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real (#2).
• Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real (#2):
o Update signal timing sheets with separate AM and PM 90 second cycle length
coordination plans. Add missing values from controller.
o Increase yellow time for westbound El Camino Real approach consistent with Table
4D.102(CA) of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(CAMUTCD).
o Increase pedestrian clearance intervals for a walking speed of 3.5 feet per second
consistent with Section 4E.06 of the CAMUTCD.
o Reconstruct southeast corner ramps and traffic signal standards adjacent to project
site as needed.
o Consider separating pedestrian push buttons on southeast corner and adding audible
pedestrian signals consistent with the Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 NB On-
Ramp (#1) intersection.
Intersection Delay1 LOS Delay
1 LOS Delay
1 LOS
AM 55.5 E 55.3 E 29.5 C
PM 25.0 C 25.0 C 24.8 C
AM 23.4 C 23.6 C 23.3 C
PM 21.3 C 21.5 C 19.1 B
Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
1. HCM average control delay in seconds/vehicle. HCM 6th Edition used for #1. HCM 2000 used for #2 due
to phasing.
Note: Unacceptable operations shown in bold text.
Existing EX + Project
Peak
Hour
2. Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real
1. Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US
101 NB On-Ramp
EX + Project
(Ex. Timing) (Ex. Timing) (Mod. Timing)
Item 8.a - Page 99
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
14700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Existing Plus Project Conditions
o Consider restriping the eastern crosswalk as a ladder and adding an advanced stop bar
consistent with adjacent crosswalks.
o Consider replacing older mast arm signs that do not meet current retroreflectivity
standards.
The Circulation Element Updated Existing Conditions Background Report (GHD, 2020) found that
the Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1) intersection operated at LOS B or better in
both peak hours and the existing signal timing sheets were likely not used in the analysis. The Brisco
Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis (Omni-Means, February 2016) also found that the
intersection operated at LOS B in both peak hours. However, the intersection was analyzed with
protective/permissive left turn phasing on the Oak Park Boulevard approaches which is not currently
in place with three-section left turn signal heads. .
4.4 SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION
The site plan shown on Figure 1 was reviewed for circulation including vehicle, truck, pedestrian, and
bicycle access.
4.4.1 Driveways
The current site has two driveways on El Camino Real and one driveway on Oak Park Boulevard. The
proposed project will eliminate the driveway on Oak Park Boulevard and reconstruct the two driveways
on El Camino Real in approximately the same locations.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) states that,
“ideally, driveways should not be located within the functional area of an intersection or the influence
area of an adjacent driveway.” The western driveway on El Camino Real is located less than 150 feet
east of the traffic signal and we recommend the driveway be restricted to right-in, right-out only.
The existing retaining wall on the southern side of El Camino Real does not restrict the stopping sight
distance at either of the driveways. However, 20 feet of the wall will need to be removed or redesigned
on either side of the driveway(s) to meet the City Standard Plan 7410.
4.4.2 On-Site Circulation
We recommend truck turning templates be applied to the site plan to confirm access. We also
recommend pedestrian access be provided between the front and rear buildings and the community
space as well as convenient and secure bike parking be located near buildings.
4.4.3 Frontage Improvements
El Camino Real and Oak Park Boulevard have existing class II bike lanes consistent with City of Arroyo
Grande and City of Grover Beach Bicycle Master Plans. The existing bike lanes fronting the site do
not meet current Highway Design Manual (HDM) standards. The HDM requires a minimum bike lane
width of six feet on roads with a posted speed greater than 40 miles per hour such as El Camino Real
fronting the site. Also, where concrete curb and gutter exist a minimum width of three feet measured
from the bike lane stripe to the joint between the shoulder pavement and the gutter shall be provided.
Currently, Chilton Street is narrow and less than two lanes wide just east of Oak Park Boulevard.
Chilton frontage improvements will require widening, drainage improvements, and luminaire pole
relocation. The minimum width for the proposed frontage improvements on Chilton Street shall be
24 feet per City Standards.
Item 8.a - Page 100
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
15700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Cumulative Conditions
5.0 Cumulative Conditions
Cumulative Conditions (2035) represent build-out of the land uses in the region. Cumulative traffic
volume forecasts were developed based on the 2035 “No Closure” intersection volumes from the
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis (Omni-Means, February 2016). When the
Existing (No Project) volumes exceeded the “No Closure” volumes the higher volume was used.
Project trips were added consistent with previous methodology. The Cumulative volumes with and
without the project are also shown on Figure 2.
No planned improvements have been identified at the study intersections and no improvements were
assumed under Cumulative Conditions. Under Cumulative Conditions, the peak hour factors were
adjusted to 0.92 for all locations.
5.1 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Table 8 presents the LOS under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, with detailed
calculation sheets included in Appendix B.
Table 8: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Levels of Service
At Oak Park Road/Branch Street/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1) the project adds more traffic to non-
impacted movements than impacted movements during the AM peak hour, decreasing the overall
delay. The Cumulative intersection operations and recommendations are summarized below:
• Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1): Signal timing (cycle lengths, splits,
force-offs, offsets, etc.) should be updated as growth occurs. In addition to the modifications
recommended under Existing Plus Project Conditions, protective/permissive left turn phasing
is needed on the Oak Park Boulevard approaches to maintain LOS C operations under
Cumulative Conditions. Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real (#2) currently has
protective/permissive left turn phasing on the Oak Park Boulevard approaches. With the
recommended timing and phasing, the westbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue length
would exceed the available storage in the PM peak hour. However, additional storage is
available in the existing two-way left turn lane. Note that the project is expected to add fewer
than ten peak hour trips to this intersection.
• Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real (#2) Signal timing (cycle lengths, splits, force-offs, offsets,
etc.) should be updated as growth occurs. No additional improvements are needed to maintain
LOS C operations under Cumulative Conditions. With updated timing, no turn lane 95th
Intersection Delay1 LOS Delay
1 LOS Delay
1 LOS
AM 49.7 D 49.6 D 28.5 C
PM 62.2 E 62.6 E 24.9 C
AM 24.7 C 25.0 C 25.1 C
PM 29.1 C 29.4 C 30.2 C
1. HCM average control delay in seconds/vehicle. HCM 6th Edition used for #1. HCM 2000 used for #2 due to
phasing.
Note: Unacceptable operations shown in bold text.
Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service
CM + Project
(Mod. Timing)
2. Oak Park Blvd/El Camino Real
Peak
Hour
Cumulative
(Ex. Timing)
CM + Project
(Ex. Timing)
1. Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US
101 NB On-Ramp
Item 8.a - Page 101
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
16700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report Cumulative Conditions
percentile queue lengths would exceed the available storage except the eastbound left and
southbound right turn lanes under the AM and PM peak hour. Both can be accommodated in
the adjacent travel lane and the project does not add traffic to these movements.
LOS C operations under Cumulative (2035) Conditions is consistent with the City of Pismo Beach
Circulation Element (June 2018). The Circulation Element identifies signal timing as an improvement
at both study intersections. In addition, the Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis
analyzed Oak Park Blvd/Branch St/US 101 NB On-Ramp (#1) with protective/permissive left turn
phasing on the Oak Park Boulevard approaches.
Item 8.a - Page 102
Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 2021
17700 Oak Park
Transportation Impact Analysis Report References
6.0 References
California Department of Transportation. July 2020. Highway Design Manual, 7th Edition.
_____. 2020, Revision 5. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition.
_____. February 2020. Transportation Impact Study Guide Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused DRAFT.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). December 2018. Technical Advisory
on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
Central Coast Transportation Consulting (CCTC). March 2021. 700 Oak Park – Traffic Impact
Analysis Report Memorandum of Assumptions.
______. April 2021. 700 Oak Park Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report.
GHD. 2020. Circulation Element Update. Existing Conditions Background Report.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. General Plan and Circulation Element.
______. July 2012. Bicycle & Trails Master Plan.
______. April 2016. Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards.
______. January 2021. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines.
______. March 2021. Draft Circulation Element.
City of Grover Beach. January 2011. Bicycle Master Plan.
City of Pismo Beach. City of Pismo Beach. 2010. Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan.
_____. 2016. Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study Update.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2017. Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition.
_____. 2017. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.
Omni-Means, Ltd. February 2016. Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis.
Transportation Research Board. 2014. Access Management Manual, 2nd Edition.
_____. 2017. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition and 2010 Edition.
Item 8.a - Page 103
700 Oak Park Existing AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 131 131 390 433 864 80 564
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.58 0.71 0.46 0.38 0.48 0.77
Control Delay 47.0 46.4 11.6 10.5 9.1 47.8 34.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.0 46.4 11.6 10.8 9.4 47.8 34.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 75 0 92 85 44 132
Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 124 72 124 263 84 172
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 261 265 575 951 2291 245 1175
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 138 665 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.49 0.68 0.53 0.53 0.33 0.48
Intersection Summary
Item 8.a - Page 104
700 Oak Park Existing AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 198 36 347 385 578 191 71 334 168
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 198 36 347 385 578 191 71 334 168
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 0 332 433 649 215 80 375 189
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 499 0 222 931 1735 574 103 461 229
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.52 0.67 0.67 0.06 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2607 863 1781 2298 1141
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 251 0 332 433 442 422 80 289 275
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1693 1781 1777 1662
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 0.0 12.6 13.8 10.0 10.0 4.0 14.0 14.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 0.0 12.6 13.8 10.0 10.0 4.0 14.0 14.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 0 222 931 1182 1127 103 357 334
V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.00 1.50 0.47 0.37 0.37 0.78 0.81 0.83
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 931 1182 1127 247 584 547
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.8 0.0 38.7 13.6 6.7 6.7 41.8 34.3 34.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 245.5 0.1 0.8 0.8 4.6 1.7 2.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 19.8 4.9 3.2 3.1 1.8 5.9 5.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.1 0.0 284.2 13.7 7.5 7.5 46.5 36.0 36.6
LnGrp LOS D A F B A A D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 583 1297 644
Approach Delay, s/veh 177.4 9.6 37.6
Approach LOS F A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 64.3 50.5 22.5 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.0 15.8 16.3 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.6 1.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 105
700 Oak Park Existing AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 168 176 56 143 60 875 90 351 146
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.09 0.47 0.24 0.18 0.16
Control Delay 48.8 48.6 5.9 46.0 6.5 8.6 16.2 14.3 22.5 15.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.8 48.6 5.9 46.0 6.5 8.6 16.2 14.3 22.5 15.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 96 0 31 0 12 158 31 108 30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 154 42 67 27 34 271 64 156 111
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 467 493 215 364 673 1876 391 1910 912
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000004000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.26 0.39 0.09 0.47 0.23 0.18 0.16
Intersection Summary
Item 8.a - Page 106
700 Oak Park Existing AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 259 44 160 19 32 130 55 770 26 82 319 133
Future Volume (vph) 259 44 160 19 32 130 55 770 26 82 319 133
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1709 1567 1828 1583 1770 3519 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1709 1567 1828 1583 1009 3519 466 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 285 48 176 21 35 143 60 846 29 90 351 146
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 139 0 0 123 0200059
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 168 37 0 56 20 60 873 0 90 351 87
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 2 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 19.1 6.3 12.7 52.9 47.1 54.1 47.7 47.7
Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 19.1 6.3 12.7 52.9 47.1 54.1 47.7 47.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.07 0.14 0.59 0.52 0.60 0.53 0.53
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 248 252 332 127 223 642 1841 372 1875 838
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.10 0.01 c0.03 0.01 0.01 c0.25 c0.02 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.11 0.44 0.09 0.09 0.47 0.24 0.19 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 36.3 28.6 40.2 33.6 7.9 13.6 8.3 11.0 10.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.61 1.74 3.73
Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 5.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)41.4 41.3 28.7 41.1 33.7 7.9 13.7 13.5 19.4 39.5
Level of Service D D C D C A B B B D
Approach Delay (s)37.0 35.8 13.3 23.5
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 107
700 Oak Park Existing AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
HCM 6th Edition methodology expects strict NEMA phasing.
Item 8.a - Page 108
700 Oak Park Existing PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 217 217 203 276 831 155 921
v/c Ratio 0.92 0.91 0.51 0.40 0.39 0.72 0.80
Control Delay 82.3 79.7 10.4 21.1 8.0 56.9 33.0
Queue Delay 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 84.2 81.3 10.4 21.1 8.3 56.9 33.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 130 129 0 147 125 85 241
Queue Length 95th (ft) #270 #269 60 97 140 #160 317
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 235 238 396 698 2107 245 1149
Starvation Cap Reductn 000062200
Spillback Cap Reductn 3300002
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.92 0.51 0.40 0.56 0.63 0.80
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Item 8.a - Page 109
700 Oak Park Existing PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 372 44 195 265 464 334 149 725 159
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 372 44 195 265 464 334 149 725 159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 421 0 173 276 483 348 155 755 166
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 492 0 219 368 1208 868 188 1494 328
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.21 0.62 0.62 0.11 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 1950 1401 1781 2880 633
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 421 0 173 276 440 391 155 466 455
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1574 1781 1777 1736
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 0.0 9.5 13.1 11.3 11.3 7.7 15.4 15.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 0.0 9.5 13.1 11.3 11.3 7.7 15.4 15.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 492 0 219 368 1101 975 188 922 901
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.79 0.75 0.40 0.40 0.82 0.51 0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 703 1101 975 247 922 901
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.9 0.0 37.5 33.5 8.7 8.7 39.4 14.1 14.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.9 0.0 15.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 12.0 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.2 0.0 4.5 5.5 3.9 3.5 3.9 5.5 5.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.8 0.0 53.3 34.6 9.6 9.8 51.5 14.3 14.3
LnGrp LOS D A D C A A D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 594 1107 1076
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.5 15.9 19.7
Approach LOS D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 60.1 22.1 51.1 16.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 13.3 15.1 17.4 12.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.5 0.4 3.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 110
700 Oak Park Existing PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 213 411 69 90 71 709 160 767 274
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.45 0.27 0.18 0.41 0.37 0.43 0.32
Control Delay 48.0 47.1 17.3 47.4 5.5 11.0 18.1 8.8 14.7 11.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Total Delay 48.0 47.1 17.3 47.4 5.5 11.0 18.1 8.8 15.2 11.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 121 77 38 0 16 136 13 154 73
Queue Length 95th (ft) 182 182 150 77 20 43 225 m78 m297 m108
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 468 585 214 340 408 1715 438 1777 852
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000005360
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.70 0.32 0.26 0.17 0.41 0.37 0.62 0.32
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 111
700 Oak Park Existing PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 326 65 378 27 37 83 65 631 21 147 706 252
Future Volume (vph) 326 65 378 27 37 83 65 631 21 147 706 252
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1713 1562 1824 1583 1770 3519 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1713 1562 1824 1583 556 3519 562 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 354 71 411 29 40 90 71 686 23 160 767 274
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 184 0 0 76 0200058
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 213 227 0 69 14 71 707 0 160 767 216
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 3 3
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 15.9 22.0 6.8 14.3 49.0 42.9 51.8 44.3 44.3
Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 15.9 22.0 6.8 14.3 49.0 42.9 51.8 44.3 44.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.08 0.16 0.54 0.48 0.58 0.49 0.49
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 302 381 137 251 384 1677 424 1741 779
v/s Ratio Prot c0.13 0.12 c0.04 c0.04 0.00 0.01 0.20 c0.03 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.71 0.59 0.50 0.06 0.18 0.42 0.38 0.44 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 34.9 34.8 30.1 40.0 32.1 10.1 15.4 9.5 14.8 13.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.85 1.09
Incremental Delay, d2 6.7 6.0 1.7 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5
Delay (s)41.6 40.9 31.7 41.0 32.2 10.2 15.5 7.4 13.0 15.2
Level of Service D D C D C B B A B B
Approach Delay (s)36.6 36.0 15.0 12.8
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 112
700 Oak Park Existing PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
HCM 6th Edition methodology expects strict NEMA phasing.
Item 8.a - Page 113
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 132 390 436 869 80 564
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.59 0.71 0.46 0.39 0.48 0.77
Control Delay 47.0 46.4 11.6 10.5 9.0 47.8 34.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.0 46.4 11.6 10.7 9.2 47.8 34.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 75 0 93 78 44 132
Queue Length 95th (ft) 125 124 72 125 266 84 172
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 261 265 575 950 2289 245 1175
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 136 657 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.50 0.68 0.54 0.53 0.33 0.48
Intersection Summary
Item 8.a - Page 114
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 199 36 347 388 580 193 71 334 168
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 199 36 347 388 580 193 71 334 168
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 253 0 332 436 652 217 80 375 189
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 499 0 222 931 1732 576 103 461 229
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.52 0.67 0.67 0.06 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2603 866 1781 2298 1141
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 253 0 332 436 445 424 80 289 275
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1692 1781 1777 1662
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 0.0 12.6 13.9 10.1 10.1 4.0 14.0 14.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 0.0 12.6 13.9 10.1 10.1 4.0 14.0 14.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 0 222 931 1182 1126 103 357 334
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.00 1.50 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.78 0.81 0.83
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 931 1182 1126 247 584 547
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.8 0.0 38.7 13.6 6.7 6.7 41.8 34.3 34.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 245.5 0.1 0.8 0.8 4.6 1.7 2.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 19.8 5.0 3.2 3.1 1.8 5.9 5.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.2 0.0 284.2 13.7 7.5 7.6 46.5 36.0 36.6
LnGrp LOS D A F B A A D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 585 1305 644
Approach Delay, s/veh 176.9 9.6 37.6
Approach LOS F A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 64.3 50.5 22.5 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.1 15.9 16.3 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.6 1.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 55.3
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 115
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 168 176 63 151 60 876 91 351 146
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.37 0.41 0.41 0.09 0.47 0.24 0.18 0.16
Control Delay 48.8 48.6 5.9 46.6 6.7 8.7 16.6 14.5 22.7 15.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.8 48.6 5.9 46.6 6.7 8.7 16.6 14.5 22.7 15.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 96 0 35 1 12 160 32 108 28
Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 154 42 72 28 34 274 66 156 111
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 467 493 214 373 669 1863 388 1898 907
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000002000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.29 0.40 0.09 0.47 0.23 0.18 0.16
Intersection Summary
Item 8.a - Page 116
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 259 44 160 24 34 137 55 770 27 83 319 133
Future Volume (vph) 259 44 160 24 34 137 55 770 27 83 319 133
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1709 1567 1825 1583 1770 3518 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1709 1567 1825 1583 1009 3518 461 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 285 48 176 26 37 151 60 846 30 91 351 146
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 139 0 0 126 0200060
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 168 37 0 63 25 60 874 0 91 351 86
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 2 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 13.3 13.3 19.1 6.6 13.1 52.5 46.7 53.9 47.4 47.4
Effective Green, g (s) 13.3 13.3 19.1 6.6 13.1 52.5 46.7 53.9 47.4 47.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.07 0.15 0.58 0.52 0.60 0.53 0.53
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 248 252 332 133 230 637 1825 370 1863 833
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.10 0.01 c0.03 0.01 0.01 c0.25 c0.02 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.11 0.47 0.11 0.09 0.48 0.25 0.19 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 36.2 36.3 28.6 40.0 33.4 8.1 13.9 8.5 11.2 10.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.73 3.70
Incremental Delay, d2 5.1 5.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)41.4 41.3 28.7 41.0 33.5 8.1 13.9 13.6 19.6 39.7
Level of Service D D C D C A B B B D
Approach Delay (s)37.0 35.7 13.6 23.7
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 117
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 219 218 203 277 833 155 923
v/c Ratio 0.93 0.92 0.51 0.40 0.40 0.72 0.80
Control Delay 84.1 80.6 10.4 21.0 8.0 56.9 33.0
Queue Delay 2.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 86.0 82.2 10.4 21.0 8.3 56.9 33.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 131 130 0 148 125 85 241
Queue Length 95th (ft) #274 #271 60 97 136 #160 318
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 235 238 396 698 2108 245 1149
Starvation Cap Reductn 000061800
Spillback Cap Reductn 3300002
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.94 0.93 0.51 0.40 0.56 0.63 0.80
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Item 8.a - Page 118
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 375 44 195 266 465 335 149 727 159
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 375 44 195 266 465 335 149 727 159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 424 0 173 277 484 349 155 757 166
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 495 0 220 368 1206 867 188 1493 327
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.21 0.62 0.62 0.11 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 1949 1401 1781 2881 632
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 424 0 173 277 441 392 155 467 456
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1574 1781 1777 1736
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 0.0 9.5 13.2 11.3 11.4 7.7 15.5 15.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 0.0 9.5 13.2 11.3 11.4 7.7 15.5 15.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 495 0 220 368 1099 974 188 921 900
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.79 0.75 0.40 0.40 0.82 0.51 0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 703 1099 974 247 921 900
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.9 0.0 37.5 33.6 8.7 8.7 39.4 14.2 14.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.1 0.0 15.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 12.0 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3 0.0 4.5 5.5 3.9 3.5 3.9 5.6 5.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.0 0.0 52.9 34.6 9.7 9.8 51.5 14.4 14.4
LnGrp LOS D A D C A A D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 597 1110 1078
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.6 15.9 19.7
Approach LOS D B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 60.1 22.1 51.0 16.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 13.4 15.2 17.5 12.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.6 0.4 3.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 119
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 217 411 73 93 71 715 165 767 274
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.46 0.27 0.18 0.42 0.38 0.43 0.32
Control Delay 47.8 47.7 18.0 47.9 5.5 11.0 18.4 9.1 14.8 11.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Total Delay 47.8 47.7 18.0 47.9 5.5 11.0 18.4 9.1 15.3 11.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 124 81 40 0 16 140 14 155 75
Queue Length 95th (ft) 182 185 154 81 20 43 228 m81 m296 m107
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 468 581 214 346 406 1703 436 1770 849
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000005350
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.71 0.34 0.27 0.17 0.42 0.38 0.62 0.32
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 120
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 326 69 378 29 38 86 65 631 27 152 706 252
Future Volume (vph) 326 69 378 29 38 86 65 631 27 152 706 252
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1714 1562 1823 1583 1770 3514 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1714 1562 1823 1583 555 3514 555 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 354 75 411 32 41 93 71 686 29 165 767 274
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 179 0 0 78 0300059
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 217 232 0 73 15 71 712 0 165 767 215
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 3 3
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.9 15.9 22.1 6.9 14.5 48.9 42.7 51.7 44.1 44.1
Effective Green, g (s) 15.9 15.9 22.1 6.9 14.5 48.9 42.7 51.7 44.1 44.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.08 0.16 0.54 0.47 0.57 0.49 0.49
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 296 302 383 139 255 385 1667 421 1734 775
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.13 c0.04 c0.04 0.00 0.01 0.20 c0.03 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.61 0.53 0.06 0.18 0.43 0.39 0.44 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 34.9 34.9 30.1 40.0 32.0 10.1 15.6 9.6 14.9 13.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.85 1.09
Incremental Delay, d2 6.7 6.7 1.9 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5
Delay (s)41.6 41.6 32.0 41.6 32.0 10.2 15.7 7.6 13.1 15.3
Level of Service D D C D C B B A B B
Approach Delay (s)36.9 36.2 15.2 12.9
Approach LOS D D B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 121
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 132 132 390 436 869 80 564
v/c Ratio 0.58 0.57 0.73 0.46 0.39 0.48 0.79
Control Delay 45.6 45.0 13.3 12.4 3.3 47.9 37.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.6 45.0 13.3 12.7 3.5 47.9 37.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 75 75 10 88 6 44 136
Queue Length 95th (ft) 122 122 84 123 135 84 181
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 440 448 688 947 2230 209 845
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 132 535 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.29 0.57 0.53 0.51 0.38 0.67
Intersection Summary
Item 8.a - Page 122
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 199 36 347 388 580 193 71 334 168
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 199 36 347 388 580 193 71 334 168
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 253 0 332 436 652 217 80 375 189
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 823 0 366 779 1490 495 103 443 220
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.44 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2603 866 1781 2298 1140
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 253 0 332 436 445 424 80 289 275
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1692 1781 1777 1662
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.3 0.0 18.3 16.4 12.9 12.9 4.0 14.1 14.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 0.0 18.3 16.4 12.9 12.9 4.0 14.1 14.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.69
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 823 0 366 779 1017 968 103 342 320
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.91 0.56 0.44 0.44 0.78 0.84 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 934 0 416 779 1017 968 204 407 380
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 0.0 33.7 18.9 11.0 11.0 41.8 35.0 35.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 20.3 0.5 1.2 1.3 4.7 11.4 14.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 8.7 6.3 4.7 4.5 1.8 6.9 6.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 0.0 53.9 19.3 12.2 12.2 46.5 46.4 49.1
LnGrp LOS C A D B B B D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 585 1305 644
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.0 14.6 47.6
Approach LOS D B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 55.9 43.1 21.7 25.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.3 43.6 33.3 20.6 23.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 14.9 18.4 16.4 20.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.6 0.9 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 123
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 168 176 63 151 60 876 91 351 146
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.35 0.45 0.37 0.09 0.48 0.25 0.19 0.16
Control Delay 43.5 43.4 4.2 49.6 8.0 9.6 17.2 15.1 22.6 16.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 43.5 43.4 4.2 49.6 8.0 9.6 17.2 15.1 22.6 16.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 96 0 35 0 12 162 32 110 30
Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 140 28 75 48 38 286 m74 157 m101
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 478 486 524 156 424 677 1837 388 1862 894
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.40 0.36 0.09 0.48 0.23 0.19 0.16
Intersection Summary
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 124
700 Oak Park Existing + Project AM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 259 44 160 24 34 137 55 770 27 83 319 133
Future Volume (vph) 259 44 160 24 34 137 55 770 27 83 319 133
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1709 1567 1825 1583 1770 3518 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1709 1567 1825 1583 1007 3518 458 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Adj. Flow (vph) 285 48 176 26 37 151 60 846 30 91 351 146
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 136 0 0 131 0200062
Lane Group Flow (vph) 165 168 40 0 63 20 60 874 0 91 351 84
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 2 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.5 14.5 20.2 6.0 12.2 51.7 46.0 52.7 46.5 46.5
Effective Green, g (s) 14.5 14.5 20.2 6.0 12.2 51.7 46.0 52.7 46.5 46.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.07 0.14 0.57 0.51 0.59 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 270 275 351 121 214 626 1798 358 1828 817
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.10 0.01 c0.03 0.01 0.01 c0.25 c0.02 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.11 0.52 0.10 0.10 0.49 0.25 0.19 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 35.1 35.1 27.8 40.6 34.1 8.4 14.3 9.0 11.7 11.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.51 1.62 3.57
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 2.8 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)38.0 37.9 27.8 42.5 34.1 8.5 14.4 13.6 19.1 39.9
Level of Service D D C D C A B B B D
Approach Delay (s)34.5 36.6 14.0 23.4
Approach LOS C D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)17.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 125
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 219 218 203 277 833 155 923
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.71 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.65 0.73
Control Delay 47.7 46.8 7.7 21.7 18.1 48.9 28.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.7 46.8 7.7 21.7 18.5 48.9 28.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 125 124 0 108 88 85 227
Queue Length 95th (ft) 188 187 52 196 236 140 300
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 422 427 549 563 1897 340 1263
Starvation Cap Reductn 000054000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.51 0.37 0.49 0.61 0.46 0.73
Intersection Summary
Item 8.a - Page 126
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 375 44 195 266 465 335 149 727 159
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 375 44 195 266 465 335 149 727 159
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 424 0 173 277 484 349 155 757 166
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 525 0 234 600 1184 851 189 1085 238
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.34 0.61 0.61 0.11 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 1949 1401 1781 2880 631
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 424 0 173 277 441 392 155 467 456
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1574 1781 1777 1735
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 0.0 9.4 11.0 11.7 11.7 7.7 20.0 20.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 0.0 9.4 11.0 11.7 11.7 7.7 20.0 20.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 525 0 234 600 1079 956 189 670 654
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.74 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.82 0.70 0.70
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 895 0 398 600 1079 956 342 670 654
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.1 0.0 36.7 23.4 9.2 9.2 39.4 23.7 23.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.2 1.0 1.2 3.3 2.7 2.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 0.0 3.6 4.4 4.1 3.7 3.4 8.3 8.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.3 0.0 38.5 23.6 10.2 10.4 42.7 26.4 26.5
LnGrp LOS D A D C B B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 597 1110 1078
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.3 13.6 28.8
Approach LOS D B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 59.1 34.0 38.3 17.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.3 37.6 22.3 32.6 22.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 13.7 13.0 22.0 12.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.4 0.3 2.8 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 127
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 217 411 73 93 71 715 165 767 274
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.77 0.50 0.24 0.18 0.42 0.39 0.44 0.33
Control Delay 45.6 45.6 21.3 51.7 8.2 10.9 18.2 4.1 7.3 4.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
Total Delay 45.6 45.6 21.3 51.7 8.2 10.9 18.2 4.1 7.5 4.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 121 124 93 40 0 16 141 3 118 42
Queue Length 95th (ft) 174 177 149 #92 39 42 219 m24 205 m96
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 478 487 540 151 392 408 1702 437 1727 833
Starvation Cap Reductn 000000002720
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.45 0.76 0.48 0.24 0.17 0.42 0.38 0.53 0.33
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 128
700 Oak Park Existing + Project PM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 326 69 378 29 38 86 65 631 27 152 706 252
Future Volume (vph) 326 69 378 29 38 86 65 631 27 152 706 252
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1714 1564 1823 1583 1770 3514 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1714 1564 1823 1583 533 3514 566 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 354 75 411 32 41 93 71 686 29 165 767 274
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 117 0 0 79 0300063
Lane Group Flow (vph) 212 217 294 0 73 14 71 712 0 165 767 211
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 3 3
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 16.4 23.5 6.3 13.8 49.6 42.5 50.4 42.9 42.9
Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 16.4 23.5 6.3 13.8 49.6 42.5 50.4 42.9 42.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.55 0.47 0.56 0.48 0.48
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 306 312 408 127 242 391 1659 417 1686 754
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 0.13 c0.06 c0.04 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.03 c0.22
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.57 0.06 0.18 0.43 0.40 0.45 0.28
Uniform Delay, d1 34.4 34.5 30.3 40.6 32.6 9.9 15.7 10.1 15.7 14.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.38 0.39
Incremental Delay, d2 5.4 5.4 5.3 3.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.7
Delay (s)39.8 39.8 35.5 44.4 32.6 10.0 15.8 2.2 6.7 6.3
Level of Service D D D D C B B A A A
Approach Delay (s)37.7 37.8 15.3 6.0
Approach LOS D D B A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)17.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 129
700 Oak Park Cumulative AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 154 158 379 538 974 86 651
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.69 0.60 0.44 0.50 0.79
Control Delay 48.0 48.1 10.8 13.1 8.5 47.9 33.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.0 48.1 10.8 13.6 8.8 47.9 33.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 87 89 0 120 67 47 150
Queue Length 95th (ft) 148 150 78 #192 274 90 193
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 267 271 570 893 2241 245 1188
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 95 630 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.66 0.67 0.60 0.35 0.55
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Item 8.a - Page 130
700 Oak Park Cumulative AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 240 47 349 495 670 226 79 383 216
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 240 47 349 495 670 226 79 383 216
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 297 0 322 538 728 246 86 416 235
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 499 0 222 884 1714 579 111 499 279
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.50 0.66 0.66 0.06 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2591 876 1781 2196 1227
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 297 0 322 538 499 475 86 336 315
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1690 1781 1777 1646
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 0.0 12.6 19.6 11.9 11.9 4.3 16.2 16.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 0.0 12.6 19.6 11.9 11.9 4.3 16.2 16.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.75
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 0 222 884 1175 1118 111 404 374
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 1.45 0.61 0.42 0.42 0.78 0.83 0.84
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 884 1175 1118 247 584 541
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.3 0.0 38.7 16.4 7.2 7.2 41.6 33.1 33.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 226.4 0.7 0.9 0.9 4.4 4.5 5.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 0.0 18.6 7.3 3.8 3.7 2.0 7.1 6.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.7 0.0 265.1 17.0 8.0 8.1 46.0 37.7 38.8
LnGrp LOS D A F B A A D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 619 1512 737
Approach Delay, s/veh 156.0 11.3 39.1
Approach LOS F B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 63.9 48.2 24.8 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 13.9 21.6 18.5 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.7 2.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 131
700 Oak Park Cumulative AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 197 201 76 159 67 1058 121 368 189
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.69 0.38 0.47 0.45 0.11 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.21
Control Delay 48.1 47.6 5.3 48.1 9.9 9.9 20.8 16.1 22.3 15.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.1 47.6 5.3 48.1 10.0 9.9 20.8 16.1 22.3 15.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 110 112 0 42 15 14 225 55 114 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 170 172 42 83 38 40 #382 m75 164 133
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 468 540 216 358 635 1761 308 1810 885
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00008028000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.35 0.45 0.11 0.61 0.39 0.20 0.21
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 132
700 Oak Park Cumulative AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 297 63 185 19 51 146 62 948 26 111 339 174
Future Volume (vph) 297 63 185 19 51 146 62 948 26 111 339 174
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1714 1567 1837 1583 1770 3523 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1714 1567 1837 1583 992 3523 311 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 323 68 201 21 55 159 67 1030 28 121 368 189
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 154 0 0 95 0200078
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 197 47 0 76 64 67 1056 0 121 368 111
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 2 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 14.9 20.9 7.0 14.1 50.1 44.1 52.3 45.2 45.2
Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 14.9 20.9 7.0 14.1 50.1 44.1 52.3 45.2 45.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.08 0.16 0.56 0.49 0.58 0.50 0.50
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 278 283 363 142 248 604 1726 295 1777 795
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.11 0.01 c0.04 0.02 0.01 c0.30 c0.03 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.13 0.54 0.26 0.11 0.61 0.41 0.21 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 35.4 27.3 39.9 33.3 9.2 16.7 10.7 12.4 12.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.38 1.53 3.11
Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 5.9 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3
Delay (s)41.5 41.3 27.4 41.9 33.5 9.2 17.2 15.0 19.2 37.6
Level of Service D D C D C A B B B D
Approach Delay (s)36.6 36.2 16.7 23.6
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.4% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 133
700 Oak Park Cumulative PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 322 326 346 325 1100 242 1130
v/c Ratio 1.37 1.36 0.67 0.47 0.53 0.99 0.98
Control Delay 224.1 221.3 11.2 17.5 8.0 95.7 53.3
Queue Delay 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3
Total Delay 226.8 223.9 11.2 18.1 8.6 95.7 53.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~256 ~260 0 94 158 139 325
Queue Length 95th (ft) #428 #431 80 132 256 #288 #472
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 235 239 519 698 2070 245 1149
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 137 537 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 38 39 00002
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.63 1.63 0.67 0.58 0.72 0.99 0.99
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Item 8.a - Page 134
700 Oak Park Cumulative PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 502 94 318 299 545 467 223 859 180
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 502 94 318 299 545 467 223 859 180
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 619 0 294 325 592 508 242 934 196
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 499 0 222 364 1047 895 247 1509 316
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.58 0.58 0.14 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 1791 1532 1781 2908 610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 619 0 294 325 587 513 242 570 560
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1546 1781 1777 1741
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 0.0 12.6 16.0 18.5 18.6 12.2 20.5 20.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 0.0 12.6 16.0 18.5 18.6 12.2 20.5 20.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 0 222 364 1038 903 247 922 904
V/C Ratio(X) 1.24 0.00 1.32 0.89 0.57 0.57 0.98 0.62 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 703 1038 903 247 922 904
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 0.0 38.7 34.8 11.6 11.6 38.6 15.3 15.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 124.7 0.0 174.0 2.4 1.7 2.0 50.7 0.9 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.9 0.0 15.4 6.8 6.7 5.9 8.6 7.5 7.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 163.4 0.0 212.7 37.3 13.3 13.6 89.4 16.3 16.3
LnGrp LOS F A F D B B F B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 913 1425 1372
Approach Delay, s/veh 179.2 18.9 29.2
Approach LOS F B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 57.0 21.9 51.1 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 20.6 18.0 22.5 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.4 2.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.2
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 135
700 Oak Park Cumulative PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 318 320 555 100 98 102 811 183 933 365
v/c Ratio 0.83 0.82 0.89 0.56 0.30 0.36 0.54 0.55 0.61 0.48
Control Delay 50.6 49.5 34.1 51.0 8.5 16.0 23.0 16.1 22.4 18.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6
Total Delay 50.6 49.5 34.1 51.0 8.5 16.0 23.0 16.1 23.6 19.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 177 177 176 55 7 28 200 58 306 122
Queue Length 95th (ft) 269 269 #303 104 28 60 264 m65 m280 m105
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 466 624 215 332 283 1499 335 1538 755
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000358138
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.89 0.47 0.30 0.36 0.54 0.55 0.79 0.59
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 136
700 Oak Park Cumulative PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 505 82 511 35 57 90 94 716 30 168 858 336
Future Volume (vph) 505 82 511 35 57 90 94 716 30 168 858 336
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1708 1560 1828 1583 1770 3514 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1708 1560 1828 1583 356 3514 428 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 549 89 555 38 62 98 102 778 33 183 933 365
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 142 0 0 58 0300068
Lane Group Flow (vph) 318 320 413 0 100 40 102 808 0 183 933 297
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 3 3
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 20.7 27.2 7.6 15.0 43.9 37.4 45.7 38.3 38.3
Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 20.7 27.2 7.6 15.0 43.9 37.4 45.7 38.3 38.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.08 0.17 0.49 0.42 0.51 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 392 471 154 263 275 1460 327 1506 673
v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 0.19 c0.06 c0.05 0.01 0.03 0.23 0.05 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.01 0.15 0.24 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.65 0.15 0.37 0.55 0.56 0.62 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 32.8 29.8 39.9 32.1 13.9 20.0 13.4 20.2 18.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.01 1.26
Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 11.8 16.1 6.9 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)45.6 44.6 45.9 46.8 32.2 14.2 20.2 14.6 20.6 23.3
Level of Service D D D D C B C B C C
Approach Delay (s)45.5 39.5 19.5 20.5
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 137
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 158 379 541 978 86 651
v/c Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.69 0.61 0.44 0.50 0.79
Control Delay 48.3 48.1 10.8 13.3 8.4 47.9 33.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.3 48.1 10.8 13.7 8.8 47.9 33.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 87 89 0 121 67 47 150
Queue Length 95th (ft) 149 150 78 #209 275 90 193
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 267 271 570 893 2241 245 1188
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 95 629 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.58 0.66 0.68 0.61 0.35 0.55
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Item 8.a - Page 138
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 241 47 349 498 672 228 79 383 216
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 241 47 349 498 672 228 79 383 216
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 0 322 541 730 248 86 416 235
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 499 0 222 884 1711 581 111 499 279
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.50 0.66 0.66 0.06 0.23 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2587 879 1781 2196 1227
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 0 322 541 501 477 86 336 315
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1690 1781 1777 1646
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 0.0 12.6 19.8 12.0 12.0 4.3 16.2 16.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 0.0 12.6 19.8 12.0 12.0 4.3 16.2 16.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.75
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 0 222 884 1175 1117 111 404 374
V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 1.45 0.61 0.43 0.43 0.78 0.83 0.84
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 884 1175 1117 247 584 541
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.3 0.0 38.7 16.4 7.2 7.2 41.6 33.1 33.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 226.4 0.7 0.9 0.9 4.4 4.5 5.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 0.0 18.6 7.4 3.9 3.7 2.0 7.1 6.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.7 0.0 265.1 17.1 8.1 8.1 46.0 37.7 38.8
LnGrp LOS D A F B A A D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 620 1519 737
Approach Delay, s/veh 155.8 11.3 39.1
Approach LOS F B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.1 63.9 48.2 24.8 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.3 14.0 21.8 18.5 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.7 2.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.6
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 139
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 197 201 84 166 67 1059 122 368 189
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.69 0.38 0.51 0.46 0.11 0.61 0.41 0.20 0.21
Control Delay 48.1 47.6 5.3 49.1 10.4 10.0 21.0 16.3 22.5 15.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 48.1 47.6 5.3 49.1 10.5 10.0 21.1 16.3 22.5 15.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 110 112 0 46 17 14 228 57 114 72
Queue Length 95th (ft) 170 172 42 90 41 40 #383 m75 164 133
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 468 540 216 362 633 1750 306 1800 881
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00008030000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.39 0.47 0.11 0.62 0.40 0.20 0.21
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 140
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 297 63 185 24 53 153 62 948 27 112 339 174
Future Volume (vph) 297 63 185 24 53 153 62 948 27 112 339 174
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1714 1567 1834 1583 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1714 1567 1834 1583 992 3522 308 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 323 68 201 26 58 166 67 1030 29 122 368 189
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 154 0 0 95 0200078
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 197 47 0 84 71 67 1057 0 122 368 111
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 2 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 14.9 14.9 21.0 7.2 14.4 49.9 43.8 52.1 44.9 44.9
Effective Green, g (s) 14.9 14.9 21.0 7.2 14.4 49.9 43.8 52.1 44.9 44.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.23 0.08 0.16 0.55 0.49 0.58 0.50 0.50
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 278 283 365 146 253 602 1714 295 1765 789
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.11 0.01 c0.05 0.02 0.01 c0.30 c0.03 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.70 0.13 0.58 0.28 0.11 0.62 0.41 0.21 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 35.4 35.4 27.3 39.9 33.2 9.3 16.9 10.8 12.6 12.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.38 1.52 3.11
Incremental Delay, d2 6.0 5.9 0.1 3.4 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3
Delay (s)41.5 41.3 27.3 43.3 33.5 9.3 17.4 15.2 19.4 38.1
Level of Service D D C D C A B B B D
Approach Delay (s)36.6 36.8 16.9 23.8
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 141
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 324 327 346 326 1102 242 1132
v/c Ratio 1.38 1.37 0.67 0.47 0.53 0.99 0.99
Control Delay 227.5 223.0 11.2 17.4 7.9 95.7 53.7
Queue Delay 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.3
Total Delay 230.2 225.6 11.2 18.1 8.5 95.7 54.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) ~260 ~261 0 91 158 139 326
Queue Length 95th (ft) #430 #432 80 132 256 #288 #474
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 235 239 519 698 2071 245 1149
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 137 540 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 38 39 00002
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 1.64 1.64 0.67 0.58 0.72 0.99 0.99
Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Item 8.a - Page 142
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 505 94 318 300 546 468 223 861 180
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 505 94 318 300 546 468 223 861 180
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 622 0 294 326 593 509 242 936 196
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 499 0 222 365 1046 895 247 1508 316
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.20 0.58 0.58 0.14 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 1790 1532 1781 2910 609
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 622 0 294 326 588 514 242 571 561
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1546 1781 1777 1741
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 0.0 12.6 16.0 18.5 18.6 12.2 20.5 20.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 0.0 12.6 16.0 18.5 18.6 12.2 20.5 20.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 0 222 365 1038 903 247 921 903
V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.00 1.32 0.89 0.57 0.57 0.98 0.62 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 499 0 222 703 1038 903 247 921 903
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 0.0 38.7 34.8 11.6 11.6 38.6 15.4 15.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 127.1 0.0 174.0 2.4 1.7 2.0 50.7 1.0 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 14.1 0.0 15.4 6.8 6.7 5.9 8.6 7.6 7.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 165.8 0.0 212.7 37.2 13.3 13.6 89.4 16.3 16.4
LnGrp LOS F A F D B B F B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 916 1428 1374
Approach Delay, s/veh 180.9 18.9 29.2
Approach LOS F B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 57.0 21.9 51.1 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 52.6 35.5 29.6 12.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 20.6 18.0 22.6 14.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.2 0.4 2.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 143
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 318 324 555 103 101 102 817 188 933 365
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.83 0.89 0.58 0.30 0.36 0.55 0.56 0.61 0.48
Control Delay 50.5 50.3 34.7 51.6 8.6 16.1 23.2 16.5 22.5 18.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.6
Total Delay 50.5 50.3 34.7 51.6 8.6 16.1 23.2 16.5 23.7 19.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 177 181 178 57 7 29 203 61 306 121
Queue Length 95th (ft) 269 273 #307 107 29 60 267 m67 m279 m104
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 459 467 622 215 334 281 1492 333 1535 754
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000000355136
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.69 0.89 0.48 0.30 0.36 0.55 0.56 0.79 0.59
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 144
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 505 86 511 37 58 93 94 716 36 173 858 336
Future Volume (vph) 505 86 511 37 58 93 94 716 36 173 858 336
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1709 1561 1827 1583 1770 3509 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.23 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1709 1561 1827 1583 353 3509 420 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 549 93 555 40 63 101 102 778 39 188 933 365
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 139 0 0 58 0400069
Lane Group Flow (vph) 318 324 416 0 103 43 102 813 0 188 933 296
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 3 3
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.7 20.7 27.3 7.7 15.2 43.8 37.2 45.6 38.1 38.1
Effective Green, g (s) 20.7 20.7 27.3 7.7 15.2 43.8 37.2 45.6 38.1 38.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.09 0.17 0.49 0.41 0.51 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.4 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 393 473 156 267 275 1450 325 1498 670
v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 0.19 c0.06 c0.06 0.01 0.03 0.23 0.05 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.01 0.15 0.24 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.66 0.16 0.37 0.56 0.58 0.62 0.44
Uniform Delay, d1 32.9 32.9 29.8 39.9 31.9 13.9 20.2 13.6 20.3 18.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.01 1.26
Incremental Delay, d2 12.7 12.5 16.3 7.8 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2
Delay (s)45.6 45.5 46.1 47.7 32.1 14.3 20.5 14.8 20.7 23.5
Level of Service D D D D C B C B C C
Approach Delay (s)45.8 40.0 19.8 20.7
Approach LOS D D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 29.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 145
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 155 158 379 541 978 86 651
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.62 0.72 0.55 0.43 0.38 0.85
Control Delay 45.6 45.5 14.0 7.7 2.3 19.1 39.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 45.6 45.5 14.0 8.1 2.5 19.1 39.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 88 89 19 65 12 23 155
Queue Length 95th (ft) 142 143 100 93 27 34 215
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 440 448 667 981 2280 317 859
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 111 586 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.62 0.58 0.27 0.76
Intersection Summary
Item 8.a - Page 146
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 241 47 349 498 672 228 79 383 216
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 241 47 349 498 672 228 79 383 216
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 298 0 322 541 730 248 86 416 235
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 804 0 358 852 1507 512 297 471 263
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.42 0.58 0.58 0.05 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2587 879 1781 2196 1227
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 298 0 322 541 501 477 86 336 315
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1689 1781 1777 1646
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 0.0 17.8 15.3 14.8 14.8 3.3 16.5 16.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 17.8 15.3 14.8 14.8 3.3 16.5 16.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.75
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 804 0 358 852 1035 984 297 381 353
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.90 0.63 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.88 0.89
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 934 0 416 852 1035 984 407 407 377
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.4 0.0 33.9 12.2 10.9 10.9 25.4 34.2 34.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 18.7 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.2 17.9 20.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 8.3 5.2 5.3 5.1 1.4 8.7 8.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.5 0.0 52.6 13.1 12.2 12.3 25.6 52.1 55.2
LnGrp LOS C A D B B B C D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 620 1519 737
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.5 12.5 50.3
Approach LOS D B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 56.8 41.6 23.7 24.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.3 43.6 33.3 20.6 23.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 16.8 17.3 18.7 19.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.1 0.8 0.6 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 147
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 197 201 84 166 67 1059 122 368 189
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.66 0.37 0.53 0.41 0.11 0.61 0.42 0.21 0.22
Control Delay 44.9 44.6 4.0 51.7 12.8 10.4 21.0 18.3 22.9 15.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 44.9 44.6 4.0 51.7 12.8 10.4 21.0 18.3 22.9 15.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 110 112 0 46 20 15 230 49 115 73
Queue Length 95th (ft) 161 163 29 #95 73 41 366 m91 m159 m117
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 478 487 560 166 416 638 1745 305 1783 876
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.40 0.36 0.51 0.40 0.11 0.61 0.40 0.21 0.22
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 148
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project AM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 297 63 185 24 53 153 62 948 27 112 339 174
Future Volume (vph) 297 63 185 24 53 153 62 948 27 112 339 174
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1714 1567 1834 1583 1770 3522 1770 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.53 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1714 1567 1834 1583 986 3522 309 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 323 68 201 26 58 166 67 1030 29 122 368 189
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 153 0 0 104 0200080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 194 197 48 0 84 62 67 1057 0 122 368 109
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)2 2 1 1
Confl. Bikes (#/hr)1
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 15.6 15.6 21.5 6.7 13.4 49.6 43.7 51.2 44.5 44.5
Effective Green, g (s) 15.6 15.6 21.5 6.7 13.4 49.6 43.7 51.2 44.5 44.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.07 0.15 0.55 0.49 0.57 0.49 0.49
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 291 297 374 136 235 594 1710 284 1749 782
v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.11 0.01 c0.05 0.02 0.01 c0.30 c0.03 0.10
v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.67 0.66 0.13 0.62 0.26 0.11 0.62 0.43 0.21 0.14
Uniform Delay, d1 34.8 34.7 26.9 40.4 33.9 9.4 17.0 11.1 12.8 12.3
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.51 1.52 3.31
Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 4.3 0.1 5.8 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3
Delay (s)39.2 39.0 26.9 46.2 34.2 9.5 17.5 17.1 19.7 41.2
Level of Service D D C D C A B B B D
Approach Delay (s)35.0 38.2 17.0 25.2
Approach LOS C D B C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 25.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)17.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 149
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Lane Group WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 324 327 346 326 1102 242 1132
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.98 0.59 0.74 0.55 0.65 0.66
Control Delay 85.1 82.5 8.3 26.0 5.6 14.9 18.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Total Delay 85.1 82.5 8.3 26.0 5.7 14.9 18.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 194 196 0 100 121 38 233
Queue Length 95th (ft) #371 #373 73 #201 144 69 303
Internal Link Dist (ft)424 302 259
Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 240 240 215
Base Capacity (vph) 328 334 587 440 1996 441 1721
Starvation Cap Reductn 000019900
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000048
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.98 0.59 0.74 0.61 0.55 0.68
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Item 8.a - Page 150
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM Mitigated
1: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On/Branch St HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 505 94 318 300 546 468 223 861 180
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 505 94 318 300 546 468 223 861 180
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 622 0 294 326 593 509 242 936 196
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222
Cap, veh/h 697 0 310 485 1038 888 422 1511 316
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.15 0.58 0.58 0.09 0.52 0.52
Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 1790 1532 1781 2910 609
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 622 0 294 326 588 514 242 571 561
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1546 1781 1777 1741
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.3 0.0 16.5 6.3 18.7 18.8 5.6 20.5 20.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.3 0.0 16.5 6.3 18.7 18.8 5.6 20.5 20.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 697 0 310 485 1030 896 422 923 904
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.00 0.95 0.67 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.62 0.62
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 697 0 310 527 1030 896 513 923 904
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 0.00 1.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.3 0.0 35.8 12.8 11.9 11.9 10.0 15.3 15.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.5 0.0 37.2 1.7 1.8 2.0 0.5 0.9 1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 0.0 9.3 3.0 6.8 6.0 1.9 7.5 7.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 0.0 72.9 14.5 13.6 13.9 10.5 16.3 16.3
LnGrp LOS D AEBBBBBB
Approach Vol, veh/h 916 1428 1374
Approach Delay, s/veh 56.5 13.9 15.3
Approach LOS E B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 56.6 16.9 51.1 22.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.3 47.6 15.3 44.6 17.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 20.8 8.3 22.6 18.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 5.1 0.3 4.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Item 8.a - Page 151
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 318 324 555 103 101 102 817 188 933 365
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.26 0.32 0.57 0.70 0.66 0.52
Control Delay 49.6 49.4 33.1 100.5 3.7 26.9 23.5 33.3 21.4 13.4
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4
Total Delay 49.6 49.4 33.1 100.5 3.7 26.9 23.5 33.3 22.1 13.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 177 181 163 59 0 38 195 66 158 80
Queue Length 95th (ft) 268 271 #275 #154 15 75 264 m104 m232 m125
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275 40
Base Capacity (vph) 466 474 631 117 399 320 1433 281 1406 705
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000017785
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.32 0.57 0.67 0.76 0.59
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 152
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM Mitigated (Bridge queue no SBR)
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real Queues
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 318 324 555 103 101 102 817 188 1298
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.26 0.40 0.57 0.70 0.93
Control Delay 49.6 49.4 33.1 100.5 3.7 33.3 23.5 33.3 31.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7
Total Delay 49.6 49.4 33.1 100.5 3.7 33.3 23.5 33.3 40.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 177 181 163 59 0 38 195 66 209
Queue Length 95th (ft) 268 271 #275 #154 15 75 264 m104 m#257
Internal Link Dist (ft)439 552 394 302
Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225 160 275
Base Capacity (vph) 466 474 631 117 399 257 1433 281 1389
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000000090
Spillback Cap Reductn 000000000
Storage Cap Reductn 000000000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.68 0.88 0.88 0.25 0.40 0.57 0.67 1.00
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Item 8.a - Page 153
700 Oak Park Cumulative + Project PM Mitigated
2: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real /El Camino Real HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
CCTC Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 505 86 511 37 58 93 94 716 36 173 858 336
Future Volume (vph) 505 86 511 37 58 93 94 716 36 173 858 336
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1709 1565 1827 1583 1593 3510 1769 3539 1583
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1709 1565 1827 1583 460 3510 282 3539 1583
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 549 93 555 40 63 101 102 778 39 188 933 365
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 79 0 0 84 0400077
Lane Group Flow (vph) 318 324 476 0 103 17 102 813 0 188 933 288
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)5 5 3 3
Parking (#/hr)0
Turn Type Split NA pm+ov Split NA pm+ov pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm
Protected Phases 44533152 16
Permitted Phases 4 3 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.8 20.8 31.1 5.8 15.2 37.4 36.7 35.8 35.8 35.8
Effective Green, g (s) 20.8 20.8 31.1 5.8 15.2 37.4 36.7 35.8 35.8 35.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.35 0.06 0.17 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40
Clearance Time (s)4.4 4.4 3.7 4.8 3.7 3.7 4.4 3.7 4.4 4.4
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 388 394 540 117 267 320 1431 267 1407 629
v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 0.19 c0.10 c0.06 0.01 0.04 0.23 0.07 c0.26
v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.00 0.10 c0.21 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.06 0.32 0.57 0.70 0.66 0.46
Uniform Delay, d1 32.8 32.8 27.7 41.8 31.4 21.3 20.5 20.2 22.2 20.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.85 0.82
Incremental Delay, d2 12.1 12.4 15.2 47.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 4.1 1.5 1.5
Delay (s)44.9 45.2 42.9 89.0 31.5 21.5 20.9 28.3 20.3 17.8
Level of Service D D D F C C C C C B
Approach Delay (s)44.1 60.5 20.9 20.7
Approach LOS D E C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 30.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 90.0 Sum of lost time (s)17.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
Item 8.a - Page 154
700 N OAK PARK ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGE a221812-01-RS20
05 May 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 16
1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)COLOR AND MATERIALS
a B C D HEFG
MaIN ROOF
GaF SHINGLES
BIRCHWOOD
METaL PaNEL
DaRK BRONZE FINISH
EXTERIOR PLaSTER
MERLEX STUCCO
P-2090 THUNDER SKy
EXTERIOR PLaSTER
MERLEX STUCCO
P-100 GLaCIER WHITE
aCCENT SIDING
FIBER CEMENT BOaRD & BaTT
BLDG 1 - SW 7604 SMOKy BLUE
BLDG 2 - SW 7082 STUNNING SHaDE
BLDG 3 - SW 0013 MaJOLICa GREEN
PRIMaRy SIDING
FIBER CEMENT BOaRD & BaTT
FISW 7570 EGRET WHITE
aWNINGS
MCELROy STaNDING SEaM
MEDIUM BRONZE
WINDOW TRIM & BRaCKETS
SW 7004 SNOWBOUND
aB
D
C
HF
E
G
ATTACHMENT 7
Item 8.a - Page 155
Arborist Report
Project: 700 N. Oak Park Blvd
Project # 1812-02-CU20
Location: Arroyo Grande, CA
Date: January 8, 2021
Prepared For: Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO)
487 Leff Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared By: Jake Minnick, PLA
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-11830A
RRM Design Group
3765 S Higuera St. Suite 102
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTACHMENT 8
Item 8.a - Page 156
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 2
Methodology 2
Summary of Findings 2
Specific Species Recommendations 3
Municipal Code Governing Trees 4
Recommendations for Trees During Construction 4
Maintenance Recommendations for Trees to Remain 5
Exhibit A - Tree Location Map 7
Table 1 - Tree Quantity Summary 8
Table 2 - Tree Evaluation Summary 9
Exhibit B - Tree Photographs 13
Terms and Conditions 20
Item 8.a - Page 157
Introduction and Overview
RRM Design Group was contracted by HASLO to complete a tree survey, assessment and
arborist report for the entire site located at 700 N. Oak Park Blvd. The site consists of two
unoccupied structures, surface parking, a vacant building pad, and is bounded by El Camino Real
to the north, N. Oak Park Blvd to the west and Chilton St to the south. Our scope of services
includes tagging, measuring diameter at breast height (DBH), assessing, and photographing the
condition of all trees on site. Disposition and health recommendations are based on current site
conditions. Site development may change the preservation suitability.
Methodology
Our tree survey work is a deliberate and systematic methodology for cataloging trees on site:
1. Identify each tree species.
2. Tag each tree with a metal tag and note its location on a site map.
3. Measure each trunk circumference at 54" above grade per ISA standards.
4. Evaluate the health and structure of each tree using the following numerical standard:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - A tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be
corrected.
3 - A tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf
color, moderate structural defects that may be mitigated with care.
2 - A tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant
structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 - A tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and or trunk, mostly epicormic growth;
extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
Summary of Findings
On December 7, 2020, RRM Design Group conducted a tree inventory of 36 trees located within
the boundaries of 4 adjacent lots that are included as part of a proposed development project.
Most of the trees observed are coast live oaks. Generally, the health of the trees inspected is
poor-moderate and many are exhibiting signs of stress like pests, epicormic, and sucker growth.
Several trees will be affected by the proposed development project and special consideration
should be given to the care of these trees if they are to remain.
This property has a long history of development. Historic aerial photographs of the site were
studied back to 1939 to determine the approximate age of the oaks, native topography, and the
development history of the land. The land was rough graded between 1939 and 1949 with the
installation of the southern offramp for N. Oak Park Blvd. The alignment of the offramp cut through
the site as it switch-backed up the hill towards what is now Chilton Street. By 1958, the offramp
was realigned and paved to the west of the current site. This appears to be the current alignment
of N. Oak Park Blvd. The lot remained rough graded and undeveloped until at least 1972. It is
unclear when the current development was constructed due to a lack of public records data and
a gap in available historic aerial imagery from 1972 – 1994.
The long history of development has impacted these centuries-old oak trees in several ways.
Some of the damage can be mitigated over time, but most cannot. In this case, impacts to the
root zone from over-excavation, compacted fill soil, and compacted paving occurred decades ago,
and cannot be mitigated. Many of the oaks have experienced one or more of these root zone
impacts in the past, and will continue to decline over the next 10-20 years. Because these trees
are declining does not mean that they should be removed. Declining and even dead trees still
perform many essential ecosystem services, such as providing habitat, shelter, and erosion
control. Trees that should be considered for removal are those that are currently, or may become,
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 2
Item 8.a - Page 158
hazardous due to structural deficiencies and/or root damage, or trees that conflict with proposed
development in which preservation would present an undue hardship on the property owner.
Refer to the following supplemental documents for additional information:
o Exhibit A - Tree Location Map for tree locations relative to the existing site conditions.
o Table 1 – Tree Quantity Summary for quantities of trees by size, species, and regional
nativity status.
o Table 2 - Tree Evaluation Summary for sizes, notes and recommendations for each tree.
o Exhibit B – Tree Photographs for numbered photographs of each tree.
Specific Species Recommendations
Species: Acer negundo (box elder)
Quantity: 2
Observations: There are three (3) box elder trees, two (2) are living and one (1) is dead. The
two living specimens are in poor health and in the late stages of decline, likely from many years
of drought.
Recommendations: These trees will not recover and should be removed.
Species: Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island pine)
Quantity: 1
Observations: This specimen is in poor-moderate health because it lacks the vigorous growth
typically exhibited by the species. It is likely that drought conditions have slowed the trees growth.
Recommendations: If this tree is to be protected, supplemental water should be provided.
Species: Pinus pinea (Italian stone pine)
Quantity: 1
Observations: This specimen is in moderate health but has been topped at a very low height (6-
8’). Topping a young tree this low to the ground will limit its lifespan as it is subjected to more
frequent pruning and the inability to safely expand outside of its current form and size.
Recommendations: Preservation of this tree will require an extensive maintenance program to
monitor and prune out structural defects as it ages. Although preservation may be possible,
replacement is recommended because a properly pruned new tree will support a much larger
crown than this tree can will be able to support.
Species: Pyrus kawakamii (evergreen pear)
Quantity: 1
Observations: This specimen is in moderate health because it lacks the vigorous growth typically
exhibited by the species. It is likely that drought conditions have slowed the tree’s growth.
Recommendations: If this tree is to be protected, supplemental water should be provided.
Species: Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak)
Quantity: 28
Observations: The mature oaks have been permanently damaged from a long history of
earthwork and development on this site. The most concerning damage is a result of alterations to
natural drainage patterns, compacted soil in root zones, buried root collars under compacted fill
soil, and extensive overpruning to allow the passage of vehicles through the site. These changes
have stressed the oaks, and some are in the early stages of decline.
Recommendations: Much of the damage to the oaks was done decades ago, leaving
rehabilitation efforts for these centuries’ old oak trees largely out of our control. Given the steep
topography of the project site, it is understandable that earthwork will, again, be a necessary
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 3
Item 8.a - Page 159
requirement for this proposed development. The best approach to preserving the oaks onsite will
be the development of a thoughtful, low impact site design near the mature specimens that will
be preserved. Additional attention should be given to these trees during construction via a well
detailed tree preservation plan and onsite arboricultural construction monitoring.
Species: Robinia psuedoacacia (black locust)
Quantity: 3
Observations: Three (3) black locust trees were observed clustered in the southeast corner of
the project site. This species of locust is recognized by Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council)
as an invasive species in California. These locust trees have naturalized on the project site and
the neighboring property to the east.
Recommendations: To limit future spread of this invasive non-native species, it is recommended
that the black locust trees are removed.
Municipal Code Governing Trees
See the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Chapter 12.16 - Community Tree Program.
Recommendations for Trees During Construction
Site preparation: All existing trees shall be fenced off 10’ beyond the extent of the drip line of
the tree. Alternatively, where this is not feasible, fence to the drip line of the tree. Where fencing
is not possible, the trunk shall be wrapped with a straw waddle and orange snow fencing. Tree
protection fencing should be a minimum of six feet high, made of pig wire with steel stakes or any
material superior in quality, such as cyclone fencing. A tree protection zone sign shall be affixed
to the fencing at appropriate intervals as determined by the arborist on site. If the fence is within
the drip line of the trees, the crown shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from
construction equipment encroaching within the drip line. All contractors, subcontractors and other
personnel shall be warned that encroachment within the fenced area is forbidden without the
consent of the Project Arborist. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other
materials, disposal of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment
or other heavy equipment. Penalties, based on the cost of remedial repairs and the evaluation
guide published by the international society of arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to
the trees.
Grading/excavating: All grading plans that specify grading within the drip line of any tree, or
within the distance from the trunk as outlined in the site preparation section above when said
distance is outside the drip line, shall first be reviewed by a certified arborist. Provisions for
aeration, drainage, pruning, tunneling beneath roots, root pruning or other necessary actions to
protect the trees shall be outlined by an arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as
described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor and dug directly beneath the
trunk of the tree. All roots 2 inches or larger shall be tunneled under and other roots shall be cut
smoothly to the trunk side of the trench. The trunk side should be draped immediately with two
layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly
and left in place until the trench is back filled to the original level. An arborist shall examine the
trench prior to back filling to ascertain the number and size of roots cut, to suggest the necessary
remedial repairs.
Remedial repairs: An arborist shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that
may affect the trees and prescribing necessary remedial work to ensure the health and stability
of the trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities brought out in the previous
sections. In addition, pruning, as outlined in the "pruning standards" of the western chapter of the
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 4
Item 8.a - Page 160
International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, aeration,
irrigation, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local
site requirements, and state agricultural pest control laws. All specifications shall be in writing.
For pest control operations, consult the local county agricultural commissioner 's office for
individuals licensed as pest control advisors or pest control operators.
Final inspection: Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken
that may impact the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compacting,
drainage, pruning and future remedial work. An arborist should submit a final report in writing
outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection.
Maintenance Recommendations for Trees to Remain
Regular maintenance, designed to promote plant health and vigor, ensures longevity of existing
trees. Regular inspections and the necessary follow-up care of mulching, fertilizing, and pruning,
can detect problems and correct them before they become damaging or fatal.
Tree Inspection: Regular inspections of mature trees at least once a year can prevent or reduce
the severity of future disease, insect, and environmental problems. During tree inspection, four
characteristics of tree vigor should be examined: new leaves or buds, leaf size, twig growth, and
absence of crown dieback (gradual death of the upper part of the tree). A reduction in the
extension of shoots (new growing parts), such as buds or new leaves, is a reliable cue that the
tree’s health has recently changed. Growth of the shoots over the past three years may be
compared to determine whether there is a reduction in the tree’s typical growth pattern. Further
signs of poor tree health are trunk decay, crown dieback, or both. These symptoms often indicate
problems that began several years before. Loose bark or deformed growths, such as trunk conks
(mushrooms), are common signs of stem decay. Any abnormalities found during these
inspections, including insect activity, and spotted, deformed, discolored, or dead leaves and twigs,
should be noted and observed closely.
Mulching: Mulch, or decomposed organic material, placed over the root zone of a tree reduces
environmental stress by providing a root environment that is cooler and contains more moisture
than the surrounding soil. Mulch can also prevent mechanical damage by keeping machines such
as lawn mowers and string trimmers away from the tree’s base. Furthermore, mulch reduces
competition from surrounding weeds and turf. To be most effective, mulch should be placed 2 to
4 inches deep and cover the entire root system, which may be as far as 2 or 3 times the diameter
of the branch spread of the tree. If the area and activities happening around the tree do not permit
the entire area to be mulched, it is recommended that as much of the area under the drip line of
the tree is mulched as possible. When placing mulch, care should be taken not to cover the actual
trunk of the tree. This mulch-free area, 1 to 2 inches wide at the base, is sufficient to avoid moist
bark conditions and prevent trunk decay. An organic mulch layer 2 to 4 inches deep of loosely
packed shredded leaves, pine straw, peat moss, or composted wood chips is adequate. Plastic
should not be used as it interferes with the exchange of gases between soil and air, which inhibits
root growth. Thicker mulch layers, 5 to 6 inches deep or greater, may also inhibit gas exchange.
Fertilization: Trees require certain nutrients (essential elements) to function and grow. Urban
landscape trees may be growing in soils that do not contain sufficient available nutrients for
satisfactory growth and development. In certain situations, it may be necessary to fertilize to
improve plant vigor. Fertilizing a tree can improve growth; however, if fertilizer is not applied
wisely, it may not benefit the tree at all and may even adversely affect the tree. Mature trees
making satisfactory growth may not require fertilization. When considering supplemental fertilizer,
it is important to consider nutrients deficiencies and how and when to amend the deficiencies.
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 5
Item 8.a - Page 161
Soil conditions, especially pH and organic matter content, vary greatly, making the proper
selection and use of fertilizer a somewhat complex process. To that end, it is recommended that
the soil be tested for nutrient content. A soil testing laboratory and can give advice on application
rates, timing, and the best blend of fertilizer for each tree and other landscape plants on site.
Mature trees have expansive root systems that extend from 2 to 3 times the size of the leaf
canopy. A major portion of actively growing roots is located outside the tree’s drip line.
Understanding the actual size and extent of a tree’s root system before applying fertilizer is
paramount to determine quantity, type and rate at which to best apply fertilizer. Always follow
manufacturer recommendations for use and application.
Pruning: Pruning is often desirable or necessary to remove dead, diseased, or insect-infested
branches and to improve tree structure, enhance vigor, or maintain safety. Because each cut has
the potential to change the growth of (or cause damage to) a tree, no branch should be removed
without reason. Removing foliage from a tree has two distinct effects on growth: (1) it reduces
photosynthesis and, (2) it may reduce overall growth. Pruning should always be performed
sparingly. Caution must be taken not to over-prune as a tree may not be able to gather and
process enough sunlight to survive. Pruning mature trees may require special equipment, training,
and experience. Arborists are equipped to provide a variety of services to assist in performing
the job safely and reducing risk of personal injury and property damage (See also Addendum A -
ANSI A300 Part 1 Pruning Standards).
Removal: There are circumstances when removal is necessary. An arborist can help decide
whether a tree should be removed. Professionally trained arborists have the skills and equipment
to remove trees safely and efficiently. Removal is recommended when a tree: (1) is dead, dying,
or considered irreparably hazardous; (2) is causing an obstruction or is crowding and causing
harm to other trees and the situation is impossible to correct through pruning; (3) is to be replaced
by a more suitable specimen, and (4) should be removed to allow for construction. Pruning or
removing trees, especially large trees, can be dangerous work. It should be performed only by
those trained and equipped to work safely in trees.
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 6
Item 8.a - Page 162
28
29
30 24
26
23
3231
20
22
19
18
3
4
1
2
6
9
1016
8
15
14
13
12
11 35
27
34
21
7
5
33
25
17
36
Exhibit A - Tree Location Map
EL CAMINO R
E
A
L
SCALE: 1" = 40'N OAK PARK BLVDEXISTING STRUCTURE,
TYPICAL
EXISTING TREE
DRIPLINE, TYPICAL
TREE TAG NUMBER,
TYPICALCHILTON ST
(E) BLDG
(E) BLDG
(E) BL
D
G
PROPERTY LINE,
TYPICAL
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 7
Item 8.a - Page 163
Species Quantity % of Site
Acer negundo 2 6%
Araucaria heterophylla 1 3%
Pinus pinea 1 3%
Pyrus kawakamii 1 3%
Quercus agrifolia 28 78%
Robinia psuedoacacia 3 8%
Total 36 100%
DBH Quantity % of Site
<12"8 22%
12-23.9"16 44%
>24"12 33%
Total 36 100%
DBH Quantity % of Site
Native 28 78%
Non-Native 8 22%
Total 36 100%
Tree Quantity by Species
Table 1 - Tree Quantity Summary
Tree Quantity by Size
Tree Quantity by Regional Nativity Status
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 8
Item 8.a - Page 164
Good
Mod.
Poor
5
4
3
2
1
CD Codominant leaders
CDB Crown Dieback
CR CR
D Decline
DBH Diameter at Breast
Height
EG Epicormic Growth
EH Exposed Heartwood
H Hazardous
IB Included Bark
LC Low crotch
LN Lean
LS Leaf Spot
ML Multiple Leaders
S Suckers
SD Structural Defects
SE Severe
SL Slight
TP Topped
ST Stress
WU Weak Union
Table 2 - Tree Evaluation Summary
Prepared By: Jake Minnick, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-11830A
DBH Measurement Height: 54"
Date of Evaluation: 12/07/2020
Suitability for Preservation is based on the following
Health Rating
Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to decline, regardless of treatment.
Trees in somewhat declining health and/or exhibits structural defects that cannot be abated with treatment. Trees will require more intense management and will have a shorter
lifespan than those in the 'Good' category.
Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.
Abbreviations and Definitions
Indicates the severity of the following term.
Indicates the mildness of the following term.
Forked leaders nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction an lacking a normal branch union.
Naturally or secondary conditions including cavities, poor branch attachments, cracks, or decayed wood in any part of the tree that may contribute to
structural failure.
Shoot arising from the roots.
More than one upright primary stem.
Weak union or fork in tree branching structure.
Specific to the coast live oaks for this project, this indicates a combination of whiteflies and black sooty mold caused by the accumulation of their moist
frass on leaf surfaces.
Measurement of tree diameter in inches. Measurement height varies by agency and is noted above.
Tree shows obvious signs of decline, which may be indicative of the presence of multiple biotic and abiotic disorders.
Tree is bounded closely by one or more of the following: structure, tree, large shrub.
Watersprouting on trunk and main leaders. Typically indicative of tree stress.
Environmental factor inhibiting regular tree growth. Includes drought, salty soils, nitrogen and other nutrient deficiencies in the soil.
Poor pruning practice of main leaders. Often practiced under utility lines to limit tree height.
Exposure of the tree's heartwood is typically seen as an open wound that leaves a tree more susceptible to pathogens, disease or infection.
Condition where branches in the tree crown die from the tips toward the center.
Tree leaning, see notes for severity.
Multiple central leaders originating below the DBH measurement site.
Structural defect where bark is included between the branch attachment. Contributes to a higher probability of failure during a storm event.
A tree that in it's current condition, presents a hazard.
A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of pests and disease, with good form typical of the species
A tree with good vigor and slight signs of stress
A tree with moderate vigor and moderate signs of stress
A tree in decline
A tree in severe decline
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park RoadJanuary 8, 20219Item 8.a - Page 165
Tree
Tag Botanical Name Common Name
Diameter at
Breast Height
(in.)
Multi Leader
Individual DBH
(in.)
Regulated
Tree
Regional
Native Health Preservation
Suitability Field Notes & Recommendations
1 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 25.0 X X 3 Moderate Located on property line, LN, ST, LS
2 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 15.5 X X 3 Moderate LN, CR, SL ST from overpruning, LS
3 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 15.0 X X 2 Poor
SE LN, LS, ST, large canker on main leader-
possible early warning signs of sudden oak
death, likely the root collar is buried
4 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 24.0 X X 3 Moderate SE LN, SL ST, CR, LS, growing into chainlink
fence on property line
5 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 44.5 24.5, 20 X X 2 Poor
ST, LS, H, SE SD - large hollow cavity on larger
leader and weak attachement of leaning second
leader, consider removal if future improvements
include occupancy by persons and/or high value
property within the target zone of the tree
6 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 18.5 X X 2 Poor SE LN, LS, CR, ST from overpruning, EG
7 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 19.0 X X 3 Good LN, CR, LS, SL ST, SL EG, SL S, root collar
buried
8 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 36.5 22.5, 14 X X 4 Good LC, SE LN, CR, LS
9 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 26.5 16, 10.5 X X 2 Poor SE CR, SE LN, CDB, ST, EG, LS, mechanical
damage from oversized vehicles
10 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 28.5 X X 4 Moderate IB, WU, LS, consider cabling at weak union
11 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 20.5 X X 3 Moderate SE LN, SE CR, LS, SL ST
12 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 34.5 19, 15.5 X X 3 Moderate SE LN, CR, SL ST, LS
13 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 33.0 X X 3 Good
ST, SL LN, LS, galls, 1 weak attachment in
crown should be pruned out or cabled to reduce
risk of failure
14 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust 6.5 X 4 Good Remove, invasive species per CAL-IPC that has
naturalized locally
15 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust 8.0 X 4 Moderate Remove, invasive species per CAL-IPC that has
naturalized locally
16 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 11.0 X X 2 Poor ST, SE CR, EG, TP, SE LN, LSArborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park RoadJanuary 8, 202110Item 8.a - Page 166
Tree
Tag Botanical Name Common Name
Diameter at
Breast Height
(in.)
Multi Leader
Individual DBH
(in.)
Regulated
Tree
Regional
Native Health Preservation
Suitability Field Notes & Recommendations
17 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 10.5 X X 3 Poor
WU, IB, LS, reduce one of the codominant
leaders, consider relocation if nearby retaining
wall is to remain
18 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 7.5 X X 2 Poor ST, CDB, LS, root crown buried
19 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 8.5 X X 4 Good IB, CD, LS, reduce smaller codominant leader
20 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 18.0 X X 2 Poor CR, EG, S, SE LN, LS, ST from overpruning
21 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 21.0 X X 3 Moderate LN, CR, SL ST, EG, LS
22 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 38.0 20, 18 X X 3 Moderate LC, WU, SE LN, LS, galls
23 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 21.0 X X 3 Moderate SE LN, LS, CR, remove limbs contacting
neighboring tree
24 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 16.0 X X 2 Poor SE LN, ST, EG, CDB, LS, consider removal
25 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 24.0 X X 3 Moderate LN, CR, ST, EG, LS
26 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 31.5 X X 3 Moderate LN, SL ST, EG, CR, LS
27 Acer negundo subsp.
californicum box elder 22.0 X 1 Poor ST, EG, SE CDB, D, remove
28 Acer negundo subsp.
californicum box elder 22.5 X 1 Poor ST, EG, SE CDB, D, remove
29 Araucaria
heterophylla
Norfolk Island
pine 8.5 X 2 Moderate LN, CR, SL CDB, ST - drought related
30 Pinus pinea Italian stone pine 19.5 X 3 Poor TP, SL ST, LN
31 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 45.0 25.5, 19.5 X X 2 Poor LN, LC, IB, ST, EG, SL CDB, LS, exposed root
collar, consider removal
32 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 31.0 X X 2 Poor TP, LC, IB, ML, SD, EH, LS, consider removal
33 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust 35.5 5.5, 5, 6, 4.5,
5.5, 4, 5 X 3 Poor
Remove, invasive species per CAL-IPC that has
naturalized locally, topped many times with
multiple weak attachments at root collar
34 Pyrus kawakamii evergreen pear 8.5 X 3 Moderate LN, CD, CR, SL blight, ST - drought relatedArborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park RoadJanuary 8, 202111Item 8.a - Page 167
Tree
Tag Botanical Name Common Name
Diameter at
Breast Height
(in.)
Multi Leader
Individual DBH
(in.)
Regulated
Tree
Regional
Native Health Preservation
Suitability Field Notes & Recommendations
35 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 25.0 X X 3 Moderate LS, ST - EG, thin crown, buried root collar
36 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 11.5 6.5, 5 X X 3 Poor LS, SE LN, ST - EG, SE CR
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park RoadJanuary 8, 202112Item 8.a - Page 168
Exhibit B - Tree Photographs
Visible decay at the root collar of tree 5Weak union at the root collar of tree 5
Tree 1 paved through the critical root zone on
3 sides Large canker on the main leader of tree 3
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 13
Item 8.a - Page 169
Mechanical damage to the main leader of
tree 9
Asphalt roadway runs through the critical
rootzones of trees 1, 4-11
Buried root collar on uphill side and asphalt
roadway on the downhill side of tree 8Improper pruning of tree 5
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 14
Item 8.a - Page 170
Close-up of the whitefly and sooty black mold
covering the old growth of all oaks onsite
Buried root collar of tree 20 Close-up of the buried root collar of tree 20
Old gall with many exit holes from a Gouty
Stem Gall Wasp on tree 13
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 15
Item 8.a - Page 171
Extensive crown dieback shown on tree 28
Extensive crown dieback shown on tree 27
Dead box elder
Tree 24 is very stressed with severe epicormic
growth, suckers, and a thin crown
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 16
Item 8.a - Page 172
Tree 31 is very stressed with severe epicormic
growth and a thin crown
Close-up of the epicormic growth on tree 31 Asphalt roadway poured in the critical root
zone of tree 32 decades ago
Topped tree 30
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 17
Item 8.a - Page 173
Tree 33 has been topped many times and now
has many weak attachments at the root collar
This leader was too large to be removed and
left tree 32 exposed to pest and disease
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 18
Item 8.a - Page 174
Terms and Conditions
The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence
pertaining to consultations, inspections, and activities of RRM Design Group.
1. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions
specifically mentioned in those reports and correspondence. RRM Design Group assumes
no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. RRM
Design Group assumes no responsibility to report on the condition of any tree or landscape
feature not specifically requested by the named client.
2. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. RRM Design Group
does not take responsibility for any defects, which could have only been discovered by
climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to
uncover the root collar and major buttress roots was not performed unless otherwise
stated. RRM Design Group does not take responsibility for any root defects, which could
only have been discovered by such an inspection.
3. RRM Design Group shall not be required to provide further documentation, give testimony,
be deposed, or attend court by reason of this appraisal or report unless subsequent
contractual arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such
services as described by RRM Design Group or in the schedule of fees or contract.
4. RRM Design Group guarantees no warrantee, either expressed or implied, as to the
suitability of the information contained in the reports for any reason. It is the responsibility
of the client to determine applicability to his/her case.
5. Any report and the values, observations and recommendations expressed therein
represent the professional opinion of RRM Design Group, and the fee for services is in no
manner contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be
reported.
6. Any photographs, diagrams, graphs, sketches, or other graphic material included in any
report, being intended solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be
construed as engineering reports or surveys, unless otherwise noted in the report. Any
reproductions of graphic material or the work produced by other persons, is intended
solely for the purpose of clarification and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information
does not constitute a representation by RRM Design Group as to the sufficiency or
accuracy of that information.
7. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with tree s is to eliminate all
trees.
Arborist Report - 700 N. Oak Park Road
January 8, 2021 19
Item 8.a - Page 175
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
Categorical Exemption Report
prepared by
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Contact: Andrew Perez, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
May 2021
ATTACHMENT 9
Item 8.a - Page 176
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
Categorical Exemption Report
prepared by
City of Arroyo Grande
Planning Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Contact: Andrew Perez, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
May 2021
Item 8.a - Page 177
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Item 8.a - Page 178
Table of Contents
Categorical Exemption Report i
Table of Contents
Categorical Exemption Report ................................................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. Project Description ................................................................................................................. 2
3. Existing Site Conditions ......................................................................................................... 11
4. Consistency Analysis ............................................................................................................. 14
Criterion (a) ........................................................................................................................... 14
Criterion (b) ........................................................................................................................... 17
Criterion (c) ........................................................................................................................... 17
Criterion (d) ........................................................................................................................... 17
Criterion (e) ........................................................................................................................... 30
5. Exceptions to the Exemption Analysis .................................................................................. 32
Criterion (a) ........................................................................................................................... 32
Criterion (b) ........................................................................................................................... 32
Criterion (c) ........................................................................................................................... 32
Criterion (d) ........................................................................................................................... 33
Criterion (e) ........................................................................................................................... 33
Criterion (f) ............................................................................................................................ 33
6. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 34
7. References ............................................................................................................................ 34
Tables
Table 1 Project Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 3
Table 2 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................. 11
Table 3 Consistency with Arroyo Grande General Plan Policies .................................................. 16
Table 4 Maximum Allowable Exposure – Stationary Sources ...................................................... 21
Table 5 Existing Noise Model Results .......................................................................................... 22
Table 6 Quarterly Construction Emissions ................................................................................... 25
Table 7 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ......................................................................... 26
Table 8 Daily Operational Emissions ............................................................................................ 26
Table 9 Annual Operational Emissions......................................................................................... 27
Table 10 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ............................................... 28
Table 11 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ........................................................ 29
Item 8.a - Page 179
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
ii
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Project Location .................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2 Project Location ................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 Building 1 Elevations ......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5 Building 2 Elevations ......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6 Building 3 Elevations ......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 7 Preliminary Landscape Plan ............................................................................................ 10
Figure 8a Photographs of the Project Site ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 8b Photographs of the Project Site ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 9 Drainage Study ................................................................................................................ 31
Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix B Noise Measurement and Analyses Data
Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Data
Item 8.a - Page 180
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 1
Categorical Exemption Report
This report serves as the technical documentation of an environmental analysis performed by
Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the 700 N. Oak Park Affordable Housing Project (project) in the City of
Arroyo Grande, California. The intent of the analysis is to document the project’s eligibility for a
Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE). The report provides an introduction, project description, and
evaluation of the project’s consistency with the requirements for a Class 32 CE. This includes an
analysis of the project’s potential impacts in the areas of biological resources, traffic, air quality and
greenhouse gas, noise, water quality, and historic resources. The report concludes that the project is
eligible for a Class 32 CE.
1. Introduction
The City of Arroyo Grande proposes to adopt a Class 32 CE for a proposed project at 700 N. Oak Park
Boulevard (project). The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a CE is allowed when:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five
acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise,
air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 provides exceptions to a categorical exemption
as follows:
a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to
be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in
a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered
to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource
of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted
pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
b. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative
impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due
to unusual circumstances.
d. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result
in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock
outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic
highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an
adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
Item 8.a - Page 181
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
2
e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a
site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government
Code.
f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. evaluated the project’s consistency with the above requirements, including
its potential impacts in the areas of biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality and greenhouse
gas, water quality, and exceptions to the exemption to confirm the project’s eligibility for the
Class 32 exemption.
2. Project Description
The project site is located along the central coast of California, within the city limits of Arroyo
Grande. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site.
As shown in Figure 2, the project site is located at 700 N. Oak Park Boulevard in the City of Arroyo
Grande, California. The site includes four parcels identified as Assessor Parcel No. (APN) 077-011-
010, 077-011-011, 077-011-012, and 077-011-013 that total 2.16 acres, or 94,090 square feet (sf).
Three of the parcels are vacant and one is developed with a two-story commercial structure and a
manufactured residential unit. The area surrounding the project site consists of commercial and
mixed uses along Oak Park Boulevard and El Camino Real and single-family residential uses along
Chilton Street to the south and southeast of the project site. The project site is located on the
corner of El Camino Real and N. Oak Park Boulevard and is surrounded by El Camino Real to the
north, N. Oak Park Boulevard to the west, and Chilton Street to the south.
The proposed project is considered an infill project because the site was previously disturbed and
developed, is currently vacant, and is substantially surrounded by development. The project
involves implementation of a mixed-use development consisting of 63 units of affordable housing,
1,178 sf of commercial space and 1,342 sf of community space in three proposed buildings. The
buildings would occupy 15,421 sf (Building 1), 13,777 sf (Building 2), and 19,507 sf (Building 3) for a
total of 48,696 sf of area, or approximately 51 percent of the total lot area. The three buildings
would be up to three stories with a maximum building height of 36’6”. The 63 affordable housing
units would include between one and three bedrooms per unit, as detailed in Table 1. The project
includes a 51 percent density bonus, or 30.1 density unit per acre. The proposed architectural site
plan is shown in Figure 3. Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the proposed building elevations.
Two vehicular access points to the project site would be located along El Camino Real. Pedestrian
access to the project site would also be provided along N. Oak Park Boulevard. The project includes
a parking reduction of approximately 20 percent and would contain 83 ground-level parking spaces
for residential and retail use, 17 of which would be covered spaces under Building 3.
A preliminary landscape site plan shown in Figure 7 includes initial irrigation calculations which are
compliant with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ord. No. 4232), as well as preliminary
plant specifications.
Construction would occur over approximately 24 months, with construction anticipated to begin in
March-2023 and be completed in the following March 2025. The project would require
approximately five feet of soil excavation for building foundations. Grading for the project would
Item 8.a - Page 182
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 3
require approximately 9,000 cubic yards of cut material and 2,000 cubic yards of fill, with 7,000
cubic yards of material export.
Table 1 Project Characteristics
Existing
Address 700 N. Oak Park Boulevard
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 077-011-010, 077-011-11, 011-011-012, 077-011-013
Lot Area 94,089.6 SF (2.16 acres)
Existing Uses Three of the parcels are vacant and one is developed with a
two-story commercial structure and manufactured residential unit
Proposed
Floor Area1
Density
Maximum Building Height
48,696 gross SF; 44,650 net SF
30.1 du/acre
36.5 feet (3-stories)
Units1 1-bedroom: 30 units
15,000 gross SF; 500 net SF per unit
2-bedroom: 17 units
13,500 gross SF; 750 net SF per unit
3-bedroom: 16 units
16,150 gross SF; 950 net SF per unit
Total: 63 units
Parking1
Covered Parking
On-Site Parking
17 spaces
66 spaces
Total: 83 spaces
1 Floor area, unit square footage, and parking presented above is representative of proposed project plans.
Item 8.a - Page 183
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
4
Figure 1 Regional Project Location
Item 8.a - Page 184
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 5
Figure 2 Project Location
Item 8.a - Page 185
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
6
Figure 3 Preliminary Site Plan
Item 8.a - Page 186
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 7
Figure 4 Building 1 Elevations
Item 8.a - Page 187
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
8
Figure 5 Building 2 Elevations
Item 8.a - Page 188
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 9
Figure 6 Building 3 Elevations
Item 8.a - Page 189
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
10
Figure 7 Preliminary Landscape Plan
Item 8.a - Page 190
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 11
3. Existing Site Conditions
The project is located at 700 Oak Park Boulevard and is approximately 2.1 acres on four separate
parcels (APNs 077-011-010, -011, -012, and -013). Three of the parcels are vacant and one is
developed with a two-story commercial structure and manufactured residential unit. The project
site is located near U.S. 101 to the north, with an existing single-family neighborhood to the south
and east, and a hotel (Holiday Inn Express) and restaurant (AJ Spurs) to the west (outside City
limits). Figure 8a and Figure 8b below shows photographs of the existing site.
The site has varying grades, but generally slopes down to the north and northeast towards El
Camino Real. The property has a Mixed-Use land use designation and is zoned Office Mixed Use.
Vegetation on the project site consists of non-native ground cover, and a number of existing oak
trees. Few ornamental trees, foundation shrubs and perennials are planted around the existing
commercial structure and manufactured unit.
Table 2 provides a summary of existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Table 2 Existing Land Use
Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation
Subject Property Vacant, Office Mixed-use Office mixed-use Mixed use
Surrounding Properties North US 101 n/a n/a
South Single-family residential Residential suburban Single-family residential,
Low-Medium Density
East Single-family residential Single-family
residential
Single-family residential,
Medium Density
West Retail, commercial
(Outside city limits)
Retail commercial
(RC), City of Grover
Beach
Retail and commercial
services, City of Grover
Beach
Item 8.a - Page 191
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
12
Figure 8a Photographs of the Project Site
Photographs 1 and 2: View of vacant portion of project site from corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real,
looking south.
Photograph 3: View of northern boundary of the site from corner of Oak Park and El Camino Real,
looking east. Photograph 4: View of project site from corner of N. Oak Park Boulevard and Chilton Street,
looking north.
Photograph 5: View of project site from corner of N. Oak Park Boulevard and Chilton Street, looking
northeast. Photograph 6: View of southern boundary of project site from corner of N. Oak Park
Boulevard and Chilton Street, looking east.
Item 8.a - Page 192
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 13
Figure 8b Photographs of the Project Site
Photograph 7: View of southern boundary of project site (Chilton Street) looking east at oak tree stand.
Photograph 8: View of oak tree stand from Chilton Street with existing structure behind, looking
northeast.
Photograph 9: View of oak tree stand from Chilton Street with existing structure behind, looking north.
Photograph 10: View of oak trees from center of project site, looking south.
Photograph 11: View of oak trees and vegetation from center of project site, looking east.
Photograph 12: View from center of project site of oak trees with existing structures behind, looking
northeast.
Item 8.a - Page 193
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
14
4. Consistency Analysis
Criterion (a)
The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
The proposed project would entail the mixed-use development of 63 affordable housing units, 1,178
sf of commercial space and 1,342 sf of community space as infill development on a site in a
developed area of Arroyo Grande. The project is consistent with the applicable zoning designation
and regulations, as well as the applicable General Plan designation and policies. Consistency with
the applicable requirements for the project under the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) and
the County of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan Land Use Element is analyzed below and shown in
Table 3.
Permitted Uses
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use (MU) and a zoning
designation of Office Mixed Use (OMU). According to the Land Use Element, the Mixed Use zone
provides for a diversity of retail and service commercial, offices, residential and other compatible
uses. The project would provide multi-family housing and commercial space and is therefore
consistent with existing land use designation outlined in the General Plan.
Lot Coverage and Height
The AGMC states that the maximum building height for OMU developments is three stories and 35
feet. However, since the project proposes 100% of the units as affordable, up to four incentives or
concessions are allowed under the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 1763. As one of these provisions,
the project includes a request for an allowance to exceed the height limit for this zone, for a
maximum of 36.5 feet in height with up to three stories. With approval of this allowance under AB
1763, the project would be consistent with the height requirements of the AGMC and State housing
law.
Density Bonus
The project would provide 30 1-bedroom units that would be 500 net sf per unit, 17 2-bedroom
units at 750 net sf per unit and 16 3-bedroom units at 950 net square feet per unit, as detailed in
Table 1. According to the AGMC, the maximum density for Office Mixed Use (OMU) projects is 20
dwelling units per acre (du/ac). However, since the project proposes 100% of the units as
affordable, an 80 percent density bonus is allowed under the provisions of AB 1763. The project
includes a 51 percent density bonus (30.1 du/acre), which would be consistent with the density
allowance under AB 1763.
Setbacks
Zero-foot setbacks for front, side, and rear yard frontages are allowable in the OMU district. The
project proposes zero-foot setbacks along the front, side, and rear frontages, and therefore would
be in compliance with the yard setback of the respective fronting streets as noted in the AGMC.
Item 8.a - Page 194
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 15
Parking
The AGMC parking regulations require a minimum of one parking space per 1-bedroom unit, 2
parking spaces per 2-bedroom unit, 2 parking spaces per 3-bedroom unit as well as one parking
space per 250 sf of retail space. Therefore, 108 total parking spaces would be required on site for
the proposed 63 residential units and 1,178 sf of retail space to meet parking needs. However, since
the project proposes 100 percent of the units as affordable, up to four incentives or concessions are
allowed under the provisions of AB 1763. As one of these provisions, the project would request a 20
percent reduction in parking requirements. The project would provide 17 covered parking spaces in
addition to 66 other on-site parking spaces, for a total of 83 spaces on the project site, as well as
accommodation for parking 62 bicycles. With approval of this allowance under AB 1763, the project
would be consistent with the parking requirements of the AGMC and State housing law.
Landscaping and Trees
Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the project site with shared, common
outdoor open space between buildings for residential use as shown in Figure 7. Formalized
landscaping would include Mediterranean and drought tolerate plants as well as hardscaped
gathering spaces. An oak understory, native, restorative planting would also be included within the
project area. Landscaping would comply with AGMC Chapter 16.36 requirements that front and
street side setbacks be landscaped. In addition, landscaping would separate parking by at least five
feet, pursuant to AGMC Chapter 16.36. As shown on the landscaping plans in Figure 7, water
demand from landscaping would not exceed the maximum water allowance, consistent with AGMC
Chapter 16.84 and the California Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance.
The landscape plans propose the removal of five existing coastal live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia).
However, permits would be acquired for the removal of these trees per AGMC Chapter 12.16.
Moreover, the landscape plans include the addition of 35 new coastal live oak trees, which is
compliant with the recommended 5.6:1 (new:removed) trees ratio.
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan has several land-use policies that are relevant to the proposed project, including
those related to community character and quality. Table 3 presents an evaluation of the project’s
consistency with applicable General Plan policies. As shown in Table 3 the project would be
consistent with applicable General Plan policies.
The project would be consistent with applicable General Plan land use designation, General Plan
policies, zoning designation and regulations. Therefore, the project is consistent with criterion ‘a’ of
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, pertaining to Class 32 exemptions for infill development
projects.
Item 8.a - Page 195
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
16
Table 3 Consistency with Arroyo Grande General Plan Policies
Policy Consistency
LU3-5: Provide adequate housing for senior citizens, low- and
moderate-income households, and other populations with
special needs.
Consistent. The project consists of 63 affordable
housing units. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with Policy LU3-5.
LU5-1: Provide for a diversity of retail and service commercial,
offices, residential and other compatible uses that support
multiple neighborhoods and the greater community, and
reduce the need for external trips to adjacent jurisdictions, by
designating Mixed Use areas along and near major arterial
streets and at convenient, strategic locations in the
community.
Consistent. The project consists of 63 residential units
as well as 1,178 sf of commercial space to
accommodate mixed uses. The project site is located
on an end lot in close proximity to arterial streets: N.
Oak Park Blvd., El Camino Real, and U.S. 101.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy
LU5-1.
LU5-3: Ensure that all projects developed in the MU areas
include appropriate site planning and urban design amenities
to encourage travel by walking, bicycling and public transit.
Consistent. The project package includes architectural
(Figure 3) and landscape (Figure 7) site plans that
define pathways appropriate for pedestrian and
bicycle use, as well as including parking for 63 bicycles.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy
LU5-3.
LU5-6: Allowable uses within the MU category shall not
include uses that adversely affect surrounding commercial or
residential uses or contribute to the deterioration of existing
environmental conditions in the area.
Consistent. As shown in Table 2, the project would be
complementary to the existing, surrounding land uses.
The project also includes an oak understory
restoration area, as shown on the landscape plans
(Figure 7). The landscape plans propose the removal
of five existing coastal live oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia). However, permits would be acquired for the
removal of these trees per AGMC Chapter 12.16.
Moreover, the landscape plans include the addition of
35 new coastal live oak trees, which is compliant with
the recommended 5.6:1 (new:removed) trees ratio.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy
LU5-6.
LU5-8: Provide for different combinations, configurations and
mixtures of commercial, office and residential uses
designating the East Grand Avenue, El Camino Real and Traffic
Way corridors as Mixed Use (MU).
Consistent. The project consists of 63 residential units
as well as 1,178 sf of commercial space to
accommodate mixed uses. The project site is located
on an end lot along the El Camino Real corridor.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with Policy
LU5-8.
LU5-9: All revitalization, redevelopment and new
development projects in Mixed Use corridors shall include
appropriate site planning and urban design amenities to
encourage pedestrian travel and encourage bike and transit
access as well as automotive.
Consistent. The project package includes architectural
(Figure 3) and landscape (Figure 7) site plans that
define pathways appropriate for pedestrian and
bicycle use, as well as including parking for 63 bicycles.
These plans also illustrate two vehicular access points
along El Camino Real. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with Policy LU5-9.
LU5-11: Promote a mixture of residential and commercial uses
along Mixed Use corridors including substantial landscaping
and streetscape improvements.
Consistent. The project consists of 63 residential units
as well as 1,178 sf of commercial space and 1,342 sf of
community space to accommodate mixed uses. The
project would include pathways appropriate for
pedestrian and bicycle use as well as appropriate plant
and finish materials, patios, and other pedestrian-
scale details. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with Policy LU5-11.
Item 8.a - Page 196
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 17
Criterion (b)
The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses.
The project site is 2.16 acres with three vacant parcels, and one developed with a two-story
commercial structure and manufactured residential unit, with signs of previous disturbance. The
project site vicinity is a developed urban neighborhood adjacent to the U.S. 101, and the site is
immediately surrounded by urban residential, mixed-use, and commercial uses on all sides, as
summarized in Table 2 above. Photos documenting the urban character of the project site and
surrounding area are provided in Figure 8. Therefore, the project constitutes infill development of
the project site and is consistent with criterion ‘b’ of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
pertaining to Class 32 exemptions for infill development projects.
Criterion (c)
The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.
The project site is located in a developed suburban area that is evident of prior disturbance. The
vegetation on site includes non-native ground cover and ornamental trees adjacent to existing
structures. The arborist report provided for the site recommends the removal of most of the
ornamental trees due to their poor health and invasive nature. The removal of these ornamental
trees would not have a substantial impact on sensitive species because they are not likely to provide
sufficient habitat for sensitive animal species due to their few numbers and being non-native
species to the area.
According to the arborist report, there are 28 existing coastal live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia)
located on the project site, most of which are grouped together in two major stands. AGMC
categorizes coastal live oak trees as “regulated trees” and thereby require permitting for their
removal as well as replacement at a mitigation ratio of 5.6:1 (AGMC, Chapter 12.16). According to
the landscape plan (Figure 7), 23 of the 28 existing coastal live oak trees would be protected in place
during project implementation, allowing for the bulk of the oak canopy, and the habitat therein, to
remain intact. Five coastal live oak trees may be removed as part of project construction, for which
the project would request a tree removal permit. 35 new costal live oak trees would be planted as a
result of the project, which exceeds the required mitigation ratio of 5.6:1.
Should trees be removed as part of project construction during bird nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), the project would be required as a condition of approval to conduct
surveys for nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds on site.
Therefore, there would be no significant impact to habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened
species, including nesting birds, and the project is consistent with criterion ‘c’ of State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332, pertaining to Class 32 exemptions for infill development projects.
Criterion (d)
Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality,
or water quality.
The following discussion provides an analysis of the project’s potential effects with respect to traffic,
noise, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, and water quality.
Item 8.a - Page 197
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
18
A. Traffic
The following analysis of traffic conditions with the project is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) completed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting in April 2021, and is included as
Appendix A. The TIA study area consists of two study intersections in the vicinity of the project site:
Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real and Oak Park Boulevard/Branch Street/US 101 NB On-Ramp.
Both study intersections currently operate at level of service (LOS) C during p.m. peak hours. During
the a.m. peak Oak Park Boulevard/El Camino Real operates at LOS C and Oak Park Boulevard/Branch
Street/US 101 NB On-Ramp operates at LOS E (Appendix A).
Conflict with a Program, Plan, or Policy, Hazards, and Inadequate Emergency
Access
LOS analysis is no longer a CEQA issue. However, draft City Guidelines state that the project would
have a significant impact if one of the following occurs:
Introduction of geometric or operational elements which are inconsistent with adopted local
and state design standards & policies
Project traffic exceeds intersection turn pocket storage length(s) or exacerbates already
exceeded turn pocket storage lengths
Project traffic added to intersections identified in the City’s adopted Local Roadway Safety
Plan and found to potentially exacerbate the identified collision pattern
Daily, morning peak hour, evening peak hour, and Saturday peak hour trips for traffic conditions
with the proposed project were calculated using the trip generation rates published in the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Trip rates were
based on ITE Land Use Code 220 for Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise), 820 for the Shopping Center,
210 for Single-Family Detached Housing, and 710 for General Office Building. The project is
estimated to generate approximately 437 daily trips, including 23 trips during the a.m. peak hour
and 30 trips during the p.m. peak hour (Appendix A).The TIA concluded that the project would not
impact existing intersection operational elements or collision patterns since the project would not
add substantial peak hour trips at the study intersections for the analyzed scenarios.
The project would eliminate the existing driveway on Oak Park Boulevard and reconstruct the two
existing driveways on El Camino Real in approximately the same locations north of the project site.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) states that,
“ideally, driveways should not be located within the functional area of an intersection or the
influence area of an adjacent driveway.” Ingress and egress final design would be subject to
approval of the Five Cities Fire Department (serving the city of Arroyo Grande), which would ensure
the final designs would comply with applicable emergency access and safety requirements. In
addition, all on-site circulation systems would be reviewed by the City Engineering Division to
ensure final designs meet City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards, which will ensure
adequate geometric and turning areas for the project.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with a local plan, policy, or program, which includes an
increase in hazards due to a design feature, or result in inadequate emergency access.
Item 8.a - Page 198
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 19
Vehicle Miles Traveled
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for evaluating transportation impacts.
Specifically, the guidelines state vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of
significance may indicate a significant impact. According to Section 15064.3(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, a lead agency may include a qualitative analysis of operational and construction traffic.
As discussed below, the project is expected to affect VMT in the project area to a less than
significant impact.
Construction of the proposed project would result in a minimal increase in local traffic as a result of
construction-related worker traffic, material and equipment deliveries, and construction activities.
VMT generated from construction-related traffic would cease once construction is completed, and
VMT levels would return to pre-project conditions. As vehicle miles generated from construction
would temporary and short term and operational use of the proposed project would not increase
VMT, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b).
The TIA provided a VMT analysis for the project using regional VMT developed with the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, which
is consistent with guidance from the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the City’s draft
Guidelines (See Appendix A). For mixed use projects, OPR recommends evaluating the VMT effect of
the dominant use. The residential VMT per capita threshold is 16.2. As discussed in the TIA Table 1-
3, the project would generate 2,079 total VMT and 1,312 residential VMT. Project VMT per capita
was calculated to be 7.9, which would be below the 16.2 VMT per capita threshold, consistent with
OPR and the draft City guidelines for residential uses. Additionally, the TIA notes OPR guidance for
redevelopment projects that reduce total regional VMT (applicable to this project) would have a
less-than significant impact to VMT, along with the OPR statement that “a project consisting of a
high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than
significant impact on VMT.” Therefore, impacts associated with VMT would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the assessment of City transportation programs and policies, VMT, design hazard, and
emergency access, implementation of the project would have no significant impacts related to
traffic.
B. Noise
Noise Characteristics and Measurement
Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure
level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be
consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around
4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below
100 Hertz).
One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers duration as well as sound power level
is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the steady A-weighted level that is equivalent
to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual varying levels over a period of time
(essentially, Leq is the average sound level).
Item 8.a - Page 199
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
20
Noise levels typically attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (such
as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about
4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about
3 dBA per doubling of distance, while noise from a point source typically attenuates at about 6 dBA
per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by the introduction of intervening
structures. For example, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source
reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm that breaks the line-of-sight
reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The construction style for new buildings in California generally
provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 30 dBA with closed windows
(Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2006).
The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be
more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise is usually measured using
Day-Night Average Level (DNL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for
noise occurring during nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7 PM
to 10 PM and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10 PM to 7 AM. Noise levels described by
DNL and CNEL usually do not differ by more than 1 dBA. In practice, CNEL and DNL are used
interchangeably.
Noise Standards
The Noise Element of the Arroyo Grande General Plan (GP) provides comprehensive goals and
policies in order to reduce noise impacts to surrounding land uses. The GP includes the following
goals and policies to minimize construction noise impacts and noise exposure to existing and
projected land uses:
Goal N5. To avoid or reduce noise impacts through site planning and project design, giving second
preference to the use of noise barriers and/or structural modifications to buildings containing noise-
sensitive land uses.
Policy N4&5-1. The city should require noise mitigation measures where existing noise levels
produce significant noise impacts to noise-sensitive land uses or where new developments may
result in cumulative increases of noise upon noise-sensitive land uses.
Policy N4&5-2. New public and private development proposals shall be reviewed to determine
conformance with the policies of this Noise Element When mitigation must be applied to satisfy
the policies of the Noise Element the following priorities for mitigation shall be observed, where
feasible:
First: Setbacks/open space separation
Second: Site layout/orientation/shielding of noise-sensitive uses with non-noise-sensitive
uses
Third: Construction of earthen berms
Fourth: Structural measures: acoustical treatment of buildings and noise barriers
constructed of concrete, wood or materials other than earth
Policy N4&5-3. Where the development of a project subject to discretionary approval may result in
land uses being exposed to existing or projected future noise levels exceeding the levels specified by
the policies in the Noise Element (see Table 4), the City shall require an acoustical analysis as part of
the environmental review under CEQA at the time the application is accepted for processing. For
Item 8.a - Page 200
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 21
development not subject to discretionary approval and/or environmental review, the requirements
for an acoustical analysis shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Table 4 Maximum Allowable Exposure – Stationary Sources
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.)2
Hourly Leq (dBA) 50 45
Maximum Noise Level (dBA) 70 65
Maximum Impulsive Noise Level (dBA) 65 60
Leq = equivalent noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibel
1 Noise level limits apply to the property line of the receiving use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the
standards may be applied on the receiver side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures.
2 Applies only where the receiving land use operates or is occupied during nighttime hours.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2001 (Table N-2)
To implement the City’s noise policies, the City adopted Chapter 9, Article 16 in the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code (AGMC). The City’s Noise Ordinance states that it is the City’s policy to regulate and
control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration in the city to maintain public
health, welfare, and safety. Chapter 9.16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) establishes
the following noise standards for the City of Arroyo Grande that would be applicable to the project:
AGMC Section 9.16.040. Sets exterior noise level standards for noise-sensitive uses (defined
under Section 4.10.1[c], Sensitive Receivers). These exterior noise level standards are equivalent
to the hourly equivalent sound level and maximum level standards contained in the Arroyo
Grande General Plan Noise Element, which are shown in Table 4. In the event the measured
ambient noise level exceeds the applicable exterior noise level standard, the applicable standard
shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.
AGMC Section 9.16.030. Provides the following exemptions to the noise standards:
Construction noise, provided that such activities occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays;
Noise sources associated with routine maintenance of industrial and public/quasi-public
properties provided that such maintenance occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
Noise sources associated with work performed by the city or private or public utilities in the
maintenance or modification of its facilities; and
Noise sources associated with the collection of waste or garbage from property devoted to
land uses other than residential uses
Some land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other uses due to the amount of
noise exposure and the types of activities involved. The project entails the construction of 63
multi-family residential units, which would be considered a noise-sensitive land use. The project site
is located near U.S. 101 to the north, an existing single-family neighborhood to the south and east,
and a hotel and restaurant to the west. The nearest sensitive receivers to the project site are the
adjacent residences located east and south of the project site. Single-family residential dwellings are
located approximately 260 feet east and 160 feet south from the center of the project site.
Item 8.a - Page 201
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
22
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
The primary source of noise in the vicinity of the project site is motor vehicle traffic, including
automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorcycles along El Camino Real located approximately 50 feet
north from the project site and ambient noise from U.S. 101 located approximately 150 feet north
of the project site. Secondary noise sources in the vicinity of the project site include automobiles,
trucks, buses, and motorcycles along N. Oak Park Boulevard located approximately 50 feet west
from the project site. While typical conversation noise may occur at nearby residential and
commercial uses, these noise events would be sporadic and limited in volume. Thus, traffic is the
main contributor to existing ambient noise levels.
To characterize existing noise levels in the project vicinity, traffic volumes provided by the TIA for
Oak Park Boulevard and El Camino Real were modeled using FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM). The
TIA estimated existing p.m. peak hour volume for Oak Park Boulevard to be 1,828, while El Camino
Real has an estimated existing p.m. peak hour volume of 380 (Appendix B). Additionally, traffic
volumes for U.S. 101 were modeled using data from California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) 2019 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, the most recently available traffic
count information. According to the Caltrans traffic data (2019), the p.m. peak hour trips volume
along U.S. 101 segment between Brisco Road and N 4th Street is 5,700 vehicles. Table 5 identifies the
modeled noise levels.
Table 5 Existing Noise Model Results
Roadway Segment
Speed
(mph)
Existing
.Peak Hour
Volume
(p.m.)
Existing Noise
Level at the
Project Site
(dBA Leq)
El Camino Real From Oak Park Boulevard to East of Project Site 45 380 62
U.S. 101 From Brisco Road to N 4th Street 65 5,700 74
Oak Park Boulevard From Atlantic City Avenue to U.S. 101 On-
and Off- Ramps 25 1,828 67
Source: Appendix B, Caltrans 2019.
As shown in Table 5, noise levels were highest along U.S. 101 from at 74 dBA Leq. Consistent with
Section 9.16.040(c) of the City’s Noise Ordinance, for locations where the existing ambient noise
conditions exceed the maximum normally acceptable exterior noise level specified in subsection
9.16.040(b), the maximum acceptable exterior noise level shall be adjusted so as to equal the
existing ambient noise level. Therefore, the ambient existing noise level on the project site is 74 dBA
Leq.
Construction Noise
The project would result in temporary noise level increases during site preparation, excavation,
paving, and building construction. The grading phase of project construction tends to create the
highest construction noise levels because of the operation of heavy equipment. Project construction
is estimated to occur over approximately 12 months and would generally occur between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and
Sundays pursuant to the City’s Noise Ordinance requirements.
Item 8.a - Page 202
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 23
Noise levels for each construction phase of the project were estimated using the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) based on default equipment
from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod, v. 2016.3.2; Appendix B).
Project construction noise was modeled by the loudest construction phase, grading, to estimate
noise levels that would be generated by construction activities at nearby residential uses. Noise was
modeled using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) developed by the FHWA to predict
construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations. RCNM estimates the combined
noise levels produced by specific equipment in each phase of construction based on the distance to
the nearest receptor. Noise levels are based on a grader, dozer and front end loader operating
simultaneously, which would occur under the most intensive construction phase, grading. The type
of equipment utilized during the grading phase was based on defaults in CalEEMod used to model
emissions, as construction equipment details have not yet been finalized for the project. The
CalEEMod default construction equipment list and construction noise model worksheets are
provided in Appendix B. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment
would be located as close as 40 feet to adjacent properties (e.g., the residences to the west) but
would typically be located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction
and the lot size of the project. Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a typical construction
day the construction equipment would operate at an average distance of 160 feet from the nearest
residential property to the south.
Using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) to estimate noise associated with
construction equipment, maximum hourly noise levels are calculated to be about 73 dBA Leq at 160
feet, as measured from the average distance of construction activities on a typical day. RCNM
calculations are included in Appendix B. Construction of the project would be exempted from the
noise standards under AGMC Section 9.16.030 as construction activities would be limited to the
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
and Sundays. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Construction Vibration
Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and
the ground, whereas sound is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather
than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from
passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies
that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground-borne
vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the
vibration increases.
No quantitative standards are established under the City’s Municipal Code. Vibration impacts are
analyzed using the thresholds from Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance
Manual and the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (Caltrans 2020; FTA
2018). From these documents, the applicable thresholds for the vibration analysis are 0.5 peak
particle velocity (PPV) inches per second at residential structures and the human “distinctly
perceptible” threshold of 0.25 PPV inches per second.
Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving,
would not be conducted to implement the project. The greatest anticipated source of vibration
during general project construction activities would be from a roller, which would be used during
paving activities and, when accounting for building setbacks, may be used within 160 feet of the
nearest off-site residential structure. A vibratory roller would create approximately 0.027 inches per
Item 8.a - Page 203
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
24
second PPV at a distance of 160 feet1 (Caltrans 2020). The anticipated vibration levels from
construction would not exceed either the threshold of distinct perceptibility for humans or the
threshold for structural damage impact to residential structures. Therefore, temporary vibration
impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant.
Operational Noise
Existing uses near the project site may periodically be subject to noise associated with operation of
the project, including noise that is typical of residential development such as conversations, music,
trash hauling, engine noise from the movement of vehicles in the parking area, beeping from locking
and unlocking vehicles, and noise associated with rooftop ventilation and heating systems.
Additionally, conversations taking place on the ground-floor outdoor paseo may be audible at
adjacent residences. However, this activity would not substantially contribute to average ambient
noise levels and would be comparable to similar activities at the existing residential uses on
neighboring properties.
In addition, the project would generate traffic noise from vehicles traveling to and from the project
site. As discussed in the traffic analysis provided under criterion ‘d,’ the project would generate
approximately 437 daily trips, with 23 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 30 trips during the p.m.
peak hour (Appendix A). The project-specific TIA concludes that the project generated traffic would
result in a negligible change in the level of service for study intersections, and project trips would
not double the amount of traffic in the vicinity of the project site (Appendix A). Roughly a doubling
of traffic volume would be necessary to generate a perceptible increase in roadway noise levels of 3
dBA or more. Therefore, the traffic volume generated by the project relative to existing traffic
volumes on local roadways would not result in a perceptible increase in roadway noise. In addition,
a majority of these trips would travel from the project site and the U.S. 101 on-ramps. There are no
sensitive receptors along these routes.
Conclusion
The project would not result in a significant long-term increase in traffic noise levels, and temporary
construction noise impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with the City’s time
restrictions on construction activities pursuant to the City’s standard conditions for the project. The
project’s operational noise would be similar to noise from other nearby residences and would be
less than significant in the context of the existing noise in the surrounding area. Therefore, noise-
related impacts resulting from implementation of the project would be less than significant
C. Air Quality
The project site is located in Arroyo Grande, in the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which is
under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). As the local Air
Quality Control District, SLOAPCD monitors air pollutant levels within the SCCAB to ensure that state
and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the
standards. The primary pollutants of concern in San Luis Obispo County are ozone (O3) and
particulate matter (PM10). The major local sources for PM10 are agricultural operations, vehicle dust,
grading, and dust produced by high winds. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not produced
directly by a source, but rather is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive
1 PPVequipment = PPVref(25/D)n (in/sec) where PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet (0.210 in/sec for rollers), D is the distance from
equipment to the receiver in feet, and n is 1.1 (the value related to the attenuation rate through ground) (Caltrans 2013b).
Item 8.a - Page 204
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 25
organic gases (ROG) in the presence of sunlight. In San Luis Obispo County, the major sources of
ROG are motor vehicles, organic solvents, the petroleum industry, and pesticides; and the major
sources of NOX are motor vehicles, public utility power generation, and fuel combustion by various
industrial sources (SLOAPCD 2001).
Certain population groups are more sensitive to air pollution than others. Standards are designed to
protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under
14, the elderly over 65, persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Therefore, the majority of sensitive receptor
locations are residences, schools, and hospitals. The project site is located adjacent to residential
units to the north and east.
The project’s short-term and long-term air pollutant emissions were estimated using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. Where project-specific information was
not available, model default assumptions for projects within SLOAPCD were used. Central Coast
Transportation Consulting conducted Trip Generation and VMT Analysis for the project in April
2021. The estimated number of trips generated by the project were included in the CalEEMod
analysis. In addition, architectural coating default settings were extended to half of the building
phase to reflect more realistic construction practices.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions associated
with site grading, building construction, paving, and other construction-related activities that have
the potential to generate substantial air pollutant emissions. Temporary construction emissions
from these activities were estimated using CalEEMod, based on the preliminary site plan (Figure 3)
and model default assumptions for projects within SLOAPCD. Table 6 and Table 7 show the
estimated maximum quarterly and daily construction emissions associated with the proposed
development and compare the emissions with the applicable SLOAPCD significance thresholds.
Table 6 Quarterly Construction Emissions
Pollutant Maximum Daily Emissions Significance Threshold Significant Impact?
Ozone Precursors (ROG + NOx) 0.5 2.5 No
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) <0.1 2.5 No
DPM2 <0.1 2.5 No
1 Quarterly emissions were calculated by dividing maximum annual construction emissions by 4, since construction activities would
extend for a duration exceeding 90 days, as recommended by SLOAPCD.
2.The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD. This estimation
represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM.
See Appendix C for CalEEMod software program output.
Item 8.a - Page 205
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
26
Table 7 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions Significance Threshold Significant Impact?
Ozone Precursors (ROG + NOx) 30.7 137 No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)1 0.9 7 No
CO 18.1 550 No
SOx 0.03 250 No
PM10 7.6 100 No
PM2.5 4.2 100 No
1 The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD. This estimation
represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM.
See Appendix C for CalEEMod worksheets.
As shown in Table 6 and Table 7, the project would not generate emissions in excess of SLOAPCD
thresholds during construction activities. Because the County of San Luis Obispo portion of the
SCCAB does not meet the State standard for PM10, SLOAPCD requires projects within 1,000 feet of
any sensitive receptor to implement standard fugitive dust and emission control measures. The
project site is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive residential receptors. Therefore, project
construction activities would be required to comply with standard SLOAPCD dust and emission
control requirements to ensure that PM10 emissions generated by construction activities would be
minimized.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are contributed by on-site and off-site stationary and area sources and by
mobile sources. Area source emissions include releases from combustion to heat buildings,
architectural coatings, landscaping equipment exhaust, aerosol products, and similar activities at
the project site. Table 8 and Table 9 summarize the daily and annual operational emissions that
would result from the project and compare the emissions with the applicable SLOAPCD significance
thresholds.
Table 8 Daily Operational Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions Significance Threshold1 Significant Impact?
Ozone Precursors (ROG + NOx) 2.2 25 No
CO 6.0 550 No
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) <0.1 25 No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)2 <0.1 1.25 No
1. Daily and annual emission thresholds are based on SLOAPCD CEQA Guidelines
2 The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD. This estimation
represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM.
CalEEMod – summer operational emission data to compare to operational thresholds, see Appendix C for CalEEMod worksheets.
Item 8.a - Page 206
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 27
Table 9 Annual Operational Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions Significance Threshold1 Significant Impact?
Ozone Precursors (ROG + NOx) 0.4 25 No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)2 <0.1 25 No
1. Daily and annual emission thresholds are based on SLOAPCD CEQA Guidelines
2 The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD. This estimation
represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM.
CalEEMod – summer operational emission data to compare to operational thresholds, see Appendix C for CalEEMod worksheets.
As shown in Table 8 and Table 9, the operation of the project would not generate emissions that
would exceed adopted SLOAPCD emissions thresholds and would not significantly affect regional air
quality. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for the region and would have a less than significant impact on air quality from
operational emissions.
Conclusion
The operation and construction emissions associated with the project would not generate
significant air quality impacts.
D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to
directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute
incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a
project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s
contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential
project effects. Emissions of all GHGs are converted into their equivalent weight in CO2 (CO2e). In
March 2012, SLOAPCD adopted three CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions, which are described
below:
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategies. A project would have a significant impact if it is not
consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy that meets the requirements of the State
CEQA Guidelines. If a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, it would not
have a significant impact; OR,
Bright-Line Threshold. A project would have a significant impact if it exceeds the “bright-line
threshold” of 1,150 metric tons CO2e/year; OR,
Efficiency Threshold. A project would have a significant impact if the efficiency threshold
exceeds 4.9 metric tons of CO2e/service population/year. The service population is defined as
the number of residents plus employees for a given project.
Item 8.a - Page 207
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
28
The SLOAPCD “bright-line threshold” was developed to help reach the AB 32 emission reduction
targets by attributing an appropriate share of the GHG reductions needed from new land use
development projects subject to CEQA. Land use sector projects that comply with this threshold
would not be “cumulatively considerable” because they would be helping to solve the cumulative
problem as a part of the AB 32 process. Such small sources would not significantly add to global
climate change and would not hinder the state’s ability to reach the AB 32 goal, even when
considered cumulatively. The threshold is intended to assess small and average sized projects,
whereas the per-service population guideline is intended to avoid penalizing larger projects that
incorporate GHG-reduction measures such that they may have high total annual GHG emissions, but
would be relatively efficient, as compared to projects of similar scale. Therefore, the bright-line
threshold is the most appropriate threshold for the project, and the project would have a potentially
significant contribution to GHG emissions if it would result in emissions in excess of 1,150 metric
tons of CO2e per year.
Construction Emissions
SLOAPCD recommends estimating and amortizing construction emissions over the operational
lifetime of a project. Construction of the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily
due to the operation of construction equipment and truck trips. Emissions associated with the
construction period were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, based on the CalEEMod
defaults for the construction schedule and equipment used during project construction. Complete
results from CalEEMod and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix C.
As shown in Table 10, construction activity associated with the project would generate an estimated
319.9 metric tons of CO2e units. Amortized over a 50-year period, construction of the project would
generate approximately 6.4 metric tons of CO2e per year.
Table 10 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Construction Emissions (metric tons CO2e)
Total Estimated Construction Emissions 319.9 metric tons
Total Amortized over 50 Years 6.4 metric tons per year
See Appendix C for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emissions include emissions from energy consumption and natural gas,
waste generation, and water and wastewater conveyance. Because CalEEMod does not calculate
N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions were quantified using the CCAR General
Reporting Protocol (January 2009) direct emissions factors for mobile combustion (refer to
Appendix C for calculations). Table 11 shows the combined construction and operational GHG
emissions associated with the project.
Item 8.a - Page 208
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 29
Table 11 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e)
Construction 6.4
Operational
Area
Energy
Solid Waste
Water
1.5
126.4
15.6
15.9
Mobile
From CO2 and CH4
From N2O
7.0
2.0
Total 174.8
Threshold 1,150
Threshold Exceeded? No
Sources: See Appendix C for calculations and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
As shown in Table 11, the combined annual emissions would total 174.8 metric tons per year of
CO2e. These emissions do not exceed the applicable SLOAPCD threshold of 1,150 metric tons per
year of CO2e. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that would result in adverse
effects on the environment and this impact would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The project entails a use that is consistent with existing General Plan policies, and zoning district
regulations, as discussed under criterion ‘a.’ The estimated annual project-related GHG emissions
would be below the applicable SLOAPCD bright line GHG emissions threshold, as summarized in
Table 11. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that would result in a significant
impact.
E. Water Quality
Urban runoff can have a variety of harmful effects. Oil and grease contain a number of hydrocarbon
compounds, some of which are toxic to aquatic organisms at low concentrations. Heavy metals such
as lead, cadmium, and copper are the most common metals found in urban stormwater runoff.
These metals can be toxic to aquatic organisms and have the potential to contaminate drinking
water supplies. Nutrients from fertilizers, including nitrogen and phosphorous, can result in
excessive or accelerated growth of vegetation or algae, resulting in oxygen depletion and additional
impaired uses of water.
The project site is 2.16 acres with three vacant parcels, and one developed with a two-story
commercial structure and manufactured residential unit, with signs of previous disturbance.
Stormwater runoff that does not infiltrate on site currently enters storm drains along N. Oak Park
Boulevard and flows to existing City drainage facilities.
The applicant would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) MS4 Permit during construction and operation of the project. The project would be
required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to NPDES and City
requirements. The SWPPP must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff
Item 8.a - Page 209
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
30
water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation and approved local plans,
control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and
non-stormwater management controls, as well as incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID)
Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT) and the Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) in order to avoid discharging
pollutants into waterways. The SWPPP requirements would need to be satisfied prior to beginning
construction on any project located on a site greater than one acre.
BMPs would also be required during operation of the project to meet storm water runoff water
quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Lot coverage with the project would consist of
approximately 51.8 percent of the total lot area (48,696 square-foot building footprint on a 94,089
square-foot site). Therefore, the project would be required to prepare a storm water control plan
(SWCP). The SWCP shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable post construction requirements
for the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. As shown on the drainage study in
Figure 9, the project would include permeable parking spaces to detain post-project stormwater
flow rates to below pre-project flow rates.
Required compliance with NPDES requirements, the project SWPPP, and City’s SWCP would reduce
the potential for adverse water quality and hydrology effects. Development of the project would not
result in additional stormwater runoff and would not degrade the quality of stormwater runoff from
the site with SWPPP compliance.
Conclusion
The project would be required to comply with the City’s current NPDES permit and project-specific
SWPPP. Since the project would implement BMPs during construction and use permanent LID
measures for ongoing operation, the impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.
Therefore, the project is consistent with criterion “d” of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,
pertaining to Class 32 exemptions for infill development projects based on the analyses provided in
subsections “a” through “e” of criterion “d”
Criterion (e)
The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
The project is located in an existing developed area served by existing public utilities and services. A
substantial increase in demand for services or utilities would not be anticipated with
implementation of the proposed project. Existing water to the site is provided by the City of Arroyo
Grande and would continue to provide these services to the project. South County Sanitation
Services provides solid waste collection and wastewater treatment to existing uses in the immediate
project site vicinity and would continue to provide these services to the project. Electricity would be
provided by PG&E and gas would be provided by SoCalGas, both of whom are existing service
providers for the project site and vicinity. Therefore, the project is consistent with criterion ‘e’ of
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, pertaining to Class 32 exemptions for infill development
projects.
Item 8.a - Page 210
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 31
Figure 9 Drainage Study
Item 8.a - Page 211
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
32
5. Exceptions to the Exemption Analysis
Criterion (a)
Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located
– a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly
sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances,
except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern
where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or
local agencies.
This exception only applies to Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 categorical exemptions. The proposed project
is an infill development project, consistent with a Class 32 categorical exemption. Therefore,
exception criterion ‘a’ does not apply to the project.
Criterion (b)
Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of
successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
The project site is located in a developed urban area adjacent to U.S. 101. Existing uses in the
immediate vicinity of the project site consist of commercial uses such as hotels and restaurants,
office uses, and single--family residential dwellings. The project entails affordable residential uses
on a site with three vacant parcels and one developed with a two-story commercial structure and
manufactured residential unit, which would be compatible with the surrounding uses. As stated in
the analysis above for Class 32 categorical exemption criterion ‘a,’ the project is consistent with
development standards applicable to the existing general plan land use designation and zoning
district.
Project construction would result in less than significant environmental impacts to residents in the
immediate vicinity of the project site and there are no adjacent cumulative projects which would
lead to significant cumulative construction impacts. In addition, cumulative projects in the City
would similarly be subject to environmental review on a project-by-project basis. Therefore,
exception criterion ‘b’ does not apply to this project.
Criterion (c)
Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a
reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to
unusual circumstances.
As described in Section 3, Existing Site Conditions, the project site is 2.16 acres with three vacant
parcels, and one developed with a two-story commercial structure and manufactured residential
unit, with signs of previous disturbance. The project site is located in an urbanized area and has no
value as a habitat area for endangered, rare, or threatened species due to the small size and urban
context. The project site also does not contain any scenic resources. There are no unusual
circumstances that would cause significant environmental impacts due to the project. Therefore,
exception criterion ‘c’ does not apply to the project.
Item 8.a - Page 212
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 33
Criterion (d)
Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage
to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or
similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not
apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or
certified EIR.
The project site is located near a main arterial junction between El Camino Real and N. Oak Park
Boulevard, with the U.S. 101 running parallel to the north. None of these routes are designated as a
scenic highway (Caltrans 2021). Therefore, exception criterion ‘d’ does not apply to the project.
Criterion (e)
Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site
which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
The project site is not listed as a hazardous waste site on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5
of the Government Code, according to the EnviroStor and GeoTracker databases. Therefore,
exception criterion ‘e’ does not apply to the project.
Criterion (f)
Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
The project site is located in an urbanized neighborhood that is developed with residential,
institutional, and commercial uses and includes three vacant parcels and one developed with a two-
story commercial structure and manufactured residential unit. The existing structures on the project
site were developed sometime between 1963 and 1981, while the other three parcels have
remained vacant (NETR 2021). As noted in Section 2, Project Description, the project site is evident
of previous disturbance.
There are no buildings or structures of historic significance on the project site or immediate vicinity
according to the Historic Context Statement and Survey Report (City of Arroyo Grande 2013).
Project construction would require ground disturbance to excavate and establish the foundations
for the new proposed buildings. Therefore, previously unknown historic or cultural resources could
be unearthed during earthmoving activities. As a condition of approval, a qualified archeologist
would be required to be retained to evaluate any historic or archaeological resources should such
resources, previously unknown, be encountered during ground disturbing construction activities.
Other standard conditions may also include procedures to halt work until such resources are
appropriately handled, assessed, and/or recorded by qualified personnel to prevent damage to
found resources. Compliance with conditions of approval would result in a less than significant
impact related to historical resources.
Therefore, the project would not impact historic resources, and exception criterion ‘f’ does not
apply to the project.
Item 8.a - Page 213
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
34
6. Summary
Based on this analysis, the proposed 700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project meets all criteria for a
Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines. There are
no exceptions, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, to the Class 32 Categorical
Exemption that apply to the project.
7. References
Arroyo Grande, City of. 2001. General Plan Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element.
http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/476/Land-Use-Element. Accessed
March 2021.
____. 2013. Historic Context Statement and Survey Report.
http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/1389/Historic-Context-Statement-
PDF?bidId=. Accessed March 2021.
____. 2016. Housing Element. http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/475/Housing-
Element-2016. Accessed March 2021.
____. 2018. Land Use Map. http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/477/Land-Use-
Map. Accessed March 2021.
____. 2018. Zoning Map. http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/1350/Zoning-Map-
PDF. Accessed March 2021.
____. 2021. Municipal Code.
https://library.municode.com/ca/arroyo_grande/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=16194
. Accessed March 2021.
California State Water Board. 2021. GeoTracker Site Search.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=700+north+oak
+park+boulevard%2C+arroyo+grande. Accessed March 2021.
Caltrans. 2019. Traffic Volumes. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-
operations/census. Accessed April 2021
____. 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aa
f7000dfcc19983. Accessed March 2021.
Grover Beach, City of. 2012. General Plan Land Use Element Map.
https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/2751/LUE-Map-after-CoastalComm-
approval-includes-Tract3038_Oct2014?bidId=. Accessed March 2021.
____. 2018. Official Zoning Map. https://www.grover.org/DocumentCenter/View/2749/ZoningMap-
11x17-after-CoastalCommissionApproval-includesTract3038_Oct2014?bidId=. Accessed
March 2021.
Netronline. 2021. Netronline Historic Aerials Map.
https://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=3&lon=-
120.606445&lat=35.129107&year=. Accessed March 2021.
Item 8.a - Page 214
Categorical Exemption Report
Categorical Exemption Report 35
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2001. Clean Air Plan. Available at:
http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/clean-air-plan.phpSan Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District (2016). Annual Air Quality Report. Available at:
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/2016aqrt-FINAL.pdf
Toxic Substances Control, California Department of. 2021. EnviroStor Site/Facility Search.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=700+north+oak+park+boulev
ard%2C+arroyo+grande%2C+ca+. Accessed March 2021
Item 8.a - Page 215
1BCity of Arroyo Grande
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
36
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 8.a - Page 216
Appendix A
Traffic Impact Analysis
Item 8.a - Page 217
See Attachment 6 for Traffic Impact Analysis Report
Item 8.a - Page 218
Appendix B
Noise Measurement and Analyses Data
Item 8.a - Page 219
Appendix ___
Rincon FHWA Traffic Noise Model
Model Input
Project Name :Oak Park
Project Number :20-10818
Modeling Condition :Existing
Ground Type :Hard Peak ratio to ADT:
Metric (Leq, Ldn, CNEL) :Leq Traffic Desc. (Peak or ADT) :Peak
From To Automobiles Motorcycles Bus Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Day Evening Night
1 Oak Park Boulevard Atlantic City Avenue U.S 101 Off- On- Ramps 1,828 25 50 95 3 2 100
2 El Camino Real Oak Park Boulevard East of Project Site 380 45 50 95 3 2 100
3 U.S. 101 Brisco Road N 4th Street 5,700 65 150 87 5 8 100 -3
Model Results
Project Number :Oak Park
Modeling Condition :20-10818
Ground Type :Existing
Metric (Leq, Ldn, CNEL) :Leq
From To Automobiles Motorcycles Bus Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks Total 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB 55 dB 50 dB
1 Oak Park Boulevard Atlantic City Avenue U.S 101 Off- On- Ramps 64.1 0.0 0.0 59.2 63.0 67.3 27 86 271 857 2,709
2 El Camino Real Oak Park Boulevard East of Project Site 58.9 0.0 0.0 53.4 56.3 61.5 7 22 71 225 711
3 U.S. 101 Brisco Road N 4th Street 71.5 0.0 0.0 62.2 68.5 73.6 342 1,082 3,420 10,815 34,201
Segment
Segment
Number Roadway
Noise Levels (dB) Leq Distance to Traffic Noise Contours (feet)
Segment
Speed (mph)
Distance to
Centerline K-Factor
Segment
Number Roadway Traffic Volume
Vehicle Cassification Mix (%)24-Hour Traffic Distribution (%)
Item 8.a - Page 220
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 04/23/2021
Case Description: 20-1081 700 OAk Park - Grading Pase
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Residential - South Residential 65.0 55.0 55.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Dozer No 40 81.7 160.0 0.0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 160.0 0.0
Grader No 40 85.0 160.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Dozer 71.6 67.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Front End Loader 69.0 65.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 74.9 70.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 74.9 73.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Item 8.a - Page 221
0.21 94 0.050 25
160
0.0273 76 0.007
Last Updated: 5/1/2020
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction
Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.
Source
Vibratory Roller
Vibration Level at Receiver
Equipment
Distance
(feet)
PPVx
(in/sec)
Lvx
(VdB)
RMSx
(in/sec)
Groundborne Noise and Vibration Modeling
Notes
The reference distance is measured from the nearest anticipated point of construction equipment to the
nearest structure.
Reference Level Inputs
Equipment
PPVref
(in/sec)
Lvref
(VdB)
RMSref
(in/sec)
Reference
Distance
Vibratory Roller
Item 8.a - Page 222
Appendix C
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Data
Item 8.a - Page 223
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Acreage and SF revised based on project description: 2.16 total acres, 48,696 total SF.
Construction Phase - Architectural coating default settings extended to half of the building phase to reflect more realistic construction practices.
Architectural Coating - Updated per SLOAPCD Rule 433 VOC limits
Vehicle Trips - Central Coast Transportation Consulting Project TAZ VMT analysis identifies increase from project of 537 VMT.
Area Coating - updted per SLOAPCD Rule 433.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Office Park 1.20 1000sqft 0.03 1,200.00 0
User Defined Recreational 1.30 User Defined Unit 0.04 1,300.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 63.00 Dwelling Unit 2.09 46,196.00 180
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
San Luis Obispo County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 1 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 224
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 150.00
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 250 150
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 110.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 1,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 63,000.00 46,196.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.04
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.94 2.09
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 2.03
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.64 0.46
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 1.72
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.76 0.22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 2 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 225
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 1.87
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.42 3.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 3 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 226
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0713 0.5604 0.5018 9.6000e-
004
0.0363 0.0268 0.0631 0.0142 0.0256 0.0397 0.0000 81.3325 81.3325 0.0148 0.0000 81.7022
2022 0.6382 1.3882 1.4802 2.8000e-
003
0.0465 0.0649 0.1114 0.0124 0.0623 0.0747 0.0000 237.2121 237.2121 0.0378 0.0000 238.1579
Maximum 0.6382 1.3882 1.4802 2.8000e-
003
0.0465 0.0649 0.1114 0.0142 0.0623 0.0747 0.0000 237.2121 237.2121 0.0378 0.0000 238.1579
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.0713 0.5604 0.5018 9.6000e-
004
0.0363 0.0268 0.0631 0.0142 0.0256 0.0397 0.0000 81.3324 81.3324 0.0148 0.0000 81.7021
2022 0.6382 1.3881 1.4802 2.8000e-
003
0.0465 0.0649 0.1114 0.0124 0.0623 0.0747 0.0000 237.2119 237.2119 0.0378 0.0000 238.1576
Maximum 0.6382 1.3881 1.4802 2.8000e-
003
0.0465 0.0649 0.1114 0.0142 0.0623 0.0747 0.0000 237.2119 237.2119 0.0378 0.0000 238.1576
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 4 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 227
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2611 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
Energy 3.6000e-
003
0.0309 0.0136 2.0000e-
004
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
0.0000 122.1673 122.1673 4.6000e-
003
1.4600e-
003
122.7181
Mobile 0.0220 0.0509 0.1058 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
0.0000 6.7617 6.7617 9.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.7856
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.2968 0.0000 6.2968 0.3721 0.0000 15.6000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.4112 9.8537 11.2650 0.1454 3.5100e-
003
15.9472
Total 0.2867 0.0917 0.9773 3.2000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
7.3700e-
003
7.5700e-
003
5.0000e-
005
7.3600e-
003
7.4100e-
003
7.7080 140.1836 147.8916 0.5244 4.9700e-
003
162.4855
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 9-6-2021 12-5-2021 0.4543 0.4543
2 12-6-2021 3-5-2022 0.5770 0.5770
3 3-6-2022 6-5-2022 0.7564 0.7564
4 6-6-2022 9-5-2022 0.8370 0.8370
5 9-6-2022 9-30-2022 0.0353 0.0353
Highest 0.8370 0.8370
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 5 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 228
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2611 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
Energy 3.6000e-
003
0.0309 0.0136 2.0000e-
004
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
0.0000 122.1673 122.1673 4.6000e-
003
1.4600e-
003
122.7181
Mobile 0.0220 0.0509 0.1058 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
0.0000 6.7617 6.7617 9.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.7856
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.2968 0.0000 6.2968 0.3721 0.0000 15.6000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.4112 9.8537 11.2650 0.1454 3.5100e-
003
15.9472
Total 0.2867 0.0917 0.9773 3.2000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
7.3700e-
003
7.5700e-
003
5.0000e-
005
7.3600e-
003
7.4100e-
003
7.7080 140.1836 147.8916 0.5244 4.9700e-
003
162.4855
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 6 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 229
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/2/2021 10/6/2021 5 3
2 Grading Grading 10/7/2021 10/14/2021 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 10/15/2021 8/18/2022 5 220
4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2022 9/15/2022 5 110
5 Paving Paving 8/19/2022 9/1/2022 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 93,547; Residential Outdoor: 31,182; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,250; Striped Parking Area:
0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 7 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 230
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 48.00 7.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 10.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 8 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 231
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003
0.0000 2.3900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.3200e-
003
0.0274 0.0161 4.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
1.0500e-
003
9.7000e-
004
9.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003
0.0000 3.2551
Total 2.3200e-
003
0.0274 0.0161 4.0000e-
005
2.3900e-
003
1.0500e-
003
3.4400e-
003
2.6000e-
004
9.7000e-
004
1.2300e-
003
0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003
0.0000 3.2551
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 9 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 232
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0934
Total 5.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0934
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003
0.0000 2.3900e-
003
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.3200e-
003
0.0274 0.0161 4.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
1.0500e-
003
9.7000e-
004
9.7000e-
004
0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003
0.0000 3.2551
Total 2.3200e-
003
0.0274 0.0161 4.0000e-
005
2.3900e-
003
1.0500e-
003
3.4400e-
003
2.6000e-
004
9.7000e-
004
1.2300e-
003
0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003
0.0000 3.2551
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 10 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 233
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0934
Total 5.0000e-
005
4.0000e-
005
3.7000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0934 0.0934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0934
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.4800e-
003
0.0606 0.0293 6.0000e-
005
2.7500e-
003
2.7500e-
003
2.5300e-
003
2.5300e-
003
0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.4751
Total 5.4800e-
003
0.0606 0.0293 6.0000e-
005
0.0197 2.7500e-
003
0.0224 0.0101 2.5300e-
003
0.0126 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.4751
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 11 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 234
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2334 0.2334 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2336
Total 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2334 0.2334 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2336
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 5.4800e-
003
0.0606 0.0293 6.0000e-
005
2.7500e-
003
2.7500e-
003
2.5300e-
003
2.5300e-
003
0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.4751
Total 5.4800e-
003
0.0606 0.0293 6.0000e-
005
0.0197 2.7500e-
003
0.0224 0.0101 2.5300e-
003
0.0126 0.0000 5.4312 5.4312 1.7600e-
003
0.0000 5.4751
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 12 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 235
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2334 0.2334 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2336
Total 1.2000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
9.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
0.0000 8.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2334 0.2334 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.2336
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0573 0.4488 0.4078 7.0000e-
004
0.0229 0.0229 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 58.1417 58.1417 0.0114 0.0000 58.4276
Total 0.0573 0.4488 0.4078 7.0000e-
004
0.0229 0.0229 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 58.1417 58.1417 0.0114 0.0000 58.4276
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 13 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 236
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 6.0000e-
004
0.0187 5.4700e-
003
4.0000e-
005
8.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
9.4000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7482 3.7482 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 3.7537
Worker 5.4800e-
003
4.7700e-
003
0.0419 1.2000e-
004
0.0129 8.0000e-
005
0.0130 3.4400e-
003
8.0000e-
005
3.5100e-
003
0.0000 10.4558 10.4558 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 10.4637
Total 6.0800e-
003
0.0234 0.0474 1.6000e-
004
0.0138 1.3000e-
004
0.0140 3.7000e-
003
1.3000e-
004
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 14.2040 14.2040 5.4000e-
004
0.0000 14.2174
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0573 0.4488 0.4078 7.0000e-
004
0.0229 0.0229 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 58.1416 58.1416 0.0114 0.0000 58.4275
Total 0.0573 0.4488 0.4078 7.0000e-
004
0.0229 0.0229 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 58.1416 58.1416 0.0114 0.0000 58.4275
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 14 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 237
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 6.0000e-
004
0.0187 5.4700e-
003
4.0000e-
005
8.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
9.4000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000 3.7482 3.7482 2.2000e-
004
0.0000 3.7537
Worker 5.4800e-
003
4.7700e-
003
0.0419 1.2000e-
004
0.0129 8.0000e-
005
0.0130 3.4400e-
003
8.0000e-
005
3.5100e-
003
0.0000 10.4558 10.4558 3.2000e-
004
0.0000 10.4637
Total 6.0800e-
003
0.0234 0.0474 1.6000e-
004
0.0138 1.3000e-
004
0.0140 3.7000e-
003
1.3000e-
004
3.8200e-
003
0.0000 14.2040 14.2040 5.4000e-
004
0.0000 14.2174
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1522 1.1975 1.1770 2.0500e-
003
0.0576 0.0576 0.0552 0.0552 0.0000 170.2977 170.2977 0.0329 0.0000 171.1191
Total 0.1522 1.1975 1.1770 2.0500e-
003
0.0576 0.0576 0.0552 0.0552 0.0000 170.2977 170.2977 0.0329 0.0000 171.1191
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 15 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 238
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.6200e-
003
0.0519 0.0148 1.1000e-
004
2.6100e-
003
1.4000e-
004
2.7500e-
003
7.5000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
0.0000 10.9021 10.9021 6.4000e-
004
0.0000 10.9181
Worker 0.0151 0.0126 0.1124 3.3000e-
004
0.0379 2.3000e-
004
0.0381 0.0101 2.2000e-
004
0.0103 0.0000 29.5260 29.5260 8.3000e-
004
0.0000 29.5467
Total 0.0167 0.0645 0.1272 4.4000e-
004
0.0405 3.7000e-
004
0.0409 0.0108 3.5000e-
004
0.0112 0.0000 40.4281 40.4281 1.4700e-
003
0.0000 40.4648
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1522 1.1975 1.1770 2.0500e-
003
0.0576 0.0576 0.0552 0.0552 0.0000 170.2975 170.2975 0.0329 0.0000 171.1189
Total 0.1522 1.1975 1.1770 2.0500e-
003
0.0576 0.0576 0.0552 0.0552 0.0000 170.2975 170.2975 0.0329 0.0000 171.1189
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 16 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 239
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 1.6200e-
003
0.0519 0.0148 1.1000e-
004
2.6100e-
003
1.4000e-
004
2.7500e-
003
7.5000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
8.8000e-
004
0.0000 10.9021 10.9021 6.4000e-
004
0.0000 10.9181
Worker 0.0151 0.0126 0.1124 3.3000e-
004
0.0379 2.3000e-
004
0.0381 0.0101 2.2000e-
004
0.0103 0.0000 29.5260 29.5260 8.3000e-
004
0.0000 29.5467
Total 0.0167 0.0645 0.1272 4.4000e-
004
0.0405 3.7000e-
004
0.0409 0.0108 3.5000e-
004
0.0112 0.0000 40.4281 40.4281 1.4700e-
003
0.0000 40.4648
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4510 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0113 0.0775 0.0998 1.6000e-
004
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
0.0000 14.0429 14.0429 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 14.0658
Total 0.4622 0.0775 0.0998 1.6000e-
004
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
0.0000 14.0429 14.0429 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 14.0658
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 17 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 240
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
003
1.7600e-
003
0.0157 5.0000e-
005
5.2900e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
1.4100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1258 4.1258 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 4.1287
Total 2.1000e-
003
1.7600e-
003
0.0157 5.0000e-
005
5.2900e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
1.4100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1258 4.1258 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 4.1287
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4510 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0113 0.0775 0.0998 1.6000e-
004
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
0.0000 14.0429 14.0429 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 14.0657
Total 0.4622 0.0775 0.0998 1.6000e-
004
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
4.4900e-
003
0.0000 14.0429 14.0429 9.1000e-
004
0.0000 14.0657
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 18 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 241
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.1000e-
003
1.7600e-
003
0.0157 5.0000e-
005
5.2900e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
1.4100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1258 4.1258 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 4.1287
Total 2.1000e-
003
1.7600e-
003
0.0157 5.0000e-
005
5.2900e-
003
3.0000e-
005
5.3300e-
003
1.4100e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
0.0000 4.1258 4.1258 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 4.1287
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.7100e-
003
0.0467 0.0585 9.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
2.4400e-
003
2.2500e-
003
2.2500e-
003
0.0000 7.7550 7.7550 2.4600e-
003
0.0000 7.8165
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 4.7100e-
003
0.0467 0.0585 9.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
2.4400e-
003
2.2500e-
003
2.2500e-
003
0.0000 7.7550 7.7550 2.4600e-
003
0.0000 7.8165
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 19 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 242
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.9000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.1400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.5626 0.5626 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5630
Total 2.9000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.1400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.5626 0.5626 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5630
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.7100e-
003
0.0467 0.0585 9.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
2.4400e-
003
2.2500e-
003
2.2500e-
003
0.0000 7.7550 7.7550 2.4600e-
003
0.0000 7.8165
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 4.7100e-
003
0.0467 0.0585 9.0000e-
005
2.4400e-
003
2.4400e-
003
2.2500e-
003
2.2500e-
003
0.0000 7.7550 7.7550 2.4600e-
003
0.0000 7.8165
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 20 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 243
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.9000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.1400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.5626 0.5626 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5630
Total 2.9000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
2.1400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 7.3000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.5626 0.5626 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.5630
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 21 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 244
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0220 0.0509 0.1058 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
0.0000 6.7617 6.7617 9.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.7856
Unmitigated 0.0220 0.0509 0.1058 7.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
3.3000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
1.7000e-
004
0.0000 6.7617 6.7617 9.6000e-
004
0.0000 6.7856
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 117.81 127.89 108.36 510 510
Office Park 3.88 0.55 0.26 12 12
User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 121.69 128.44 108.62 522 522
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 0.01 0.01 0.01 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
Office Park 0.01 0.01 0.01 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3
User Defined Recreational 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 22 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 245
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 86.5271 86.5271 3.9100e-
003
8.1000e-
004
86.8661
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 86.5271 86.5271 3.9100e-
003
8.1000e-
004
86.8661
NaturalGas
Mitigated
3.6000e-
003
0.0309 0.0136 2.0000e-
004
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
0.0000 35.6402 35.6402 6.8000e-
004
6.5000e-
004
35.8520
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
3.6000e-
003
0.0309 0.0136 2.0000e-
004
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
2.4900e-
003
0.0000 35.6402 35.6402 6.8000e-
004
6.5000e-
004
35.8520
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Office Park 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
User Defined Recreational 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 23 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 246
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
642528 3.4600e-
003
0.0296 0.0126 1.9000e-
004
2.3900e-
003
2.3900e-
003
2.3900e-
003
2.3900e-
003
0.0000 34.2877 34.2877 6.6000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
34.4915
Office Park 25344 1.4000e-
004
1.2400e-
003
1.0400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3525 1.3525 3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.3605
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.6000e-
003
0.0309 0.0136 2.0000e-
004
2.4800e-
003
2.4800e-
003
2.4800e-
003
2.4800e-
003
0.0000 35.6402 35.6402 6.9000e-
004
6.5000e-
004
35.8520
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
642528 3.4600e-
003
0.0296 0.0126 1.9000e-
004
2.3900e-
003
2.3900e-
003
2.3900e-
003
2.3900e-
003
0.0000 34.2877 34.2877 6.6000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
34.4915
Office Park 25344 1.4000e-
004
1.2400e-
003
1.0400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
9.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3525 1.3525 3.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
1.3605
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 3.6000e-
003
0.0309 0.0136 2.0000e-
004
2.4800e-
003
2.4800e-
003
2.4800e-
003
2.4800e-
003
0.0000 35.6402 35.6402 6.9000e-
004
6.5000e-
004
35.8520
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 24 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 247
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
273974 79.7023 3.6000e-
003
7.5000e-
004
80.0146
Office Park 23460 6.8248 3.1000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
6.8515
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 86.5271 3.9100e-
003
8.1000e-
004
86.8661
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
273974 79.7023 3.6000e-
003
7.5000e-
004
80.0146
Office Park 23460 6.8248 3.1000e-
004
6.0000e-
005
6.8515
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 86.5271 3.9100e-
003
8.1000e-
004
86.8661
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 25 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 248
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2611 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
Unmitigated 0.2611 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 26 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 249
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1902 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0259 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
Total 0.2611 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 27 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 250
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1902 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0259 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
Total 0.2611 9.8900e-
003
0.8578 5.0000e-
005
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
4.7500e-
003
0.0000 1.4010 1.4010 1.3500e-
003
0.0000 1.4346
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 28 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 251
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 11.2650 0.1454 3.5100e-
003
15.9472
Unmitigated 11.2650 0.1454 3.5100e-
003
15.9472
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
4.23501 /
2.6699
10.7285 0.1384 3.3500e-
003
15.1862
Office Park 0.213281 /
0.13072
0.5365 6.9700e-
003
1.7000e-
004
0.7610
User Defined
Recreational
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 11.2650 0.1454 3.5200e-
003
15.9472
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 29 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 252
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
4.23501 /
2.6699
10.7285 0.1384 3.3500e-
003
15.1862
Office Park 0.213281 /
0.13072
0.5365 6.9700e-
003
1.7000e-
004
0.7610
User Defined
Recreational
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 11.2650 0.1454 3.5200e-
003
15.9472
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 30 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 253
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 6.2968 0.3721 0.0000 15.6000
Unmitigated 6.2968 0.3721 0.0000 15.6000
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
29.9 6.0694 0.3587 0.0000 15.0368
Office Park 1.12 0.2274 0.0134 0.0000 0.5633
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.2968 0.3721 0.0000 15.6000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 31 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 254
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
29.9 6.0694 0.3587 0.0000 15.0368
Office Park 1.12 0.2274 0.0134 0.0000 0.5633
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 6.2968 0.3721 0.0000 15.6000
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 32 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 255
11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:01 AMPage 33 of 33
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Item 8.a - Page 256
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Acreage and SF revised based on project description: 2.16 total acres, 48,696 total SF.
Construction Phase - Architectural coating default settings extended to half of the building phase to reflect more realistic construction practices.
Architectural Coating - Updated per SLOAPCD Rule 433 VOC limits
Vehicle Trips - Central Coast Transportation Consulting Project TAZ VMT analysis identifies increase from project of 537 VMT.
Area Coating - updted per SLOAPCD Rule 433.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Office Park 1.20 1000sqft 0.03 1,200.00 0
User Defined Recreational 1.30 User Defined Unit 0.04 1,300.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 63.00 Dwelling Unit 2.09 46,196.00 180
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
San Luis Obispo County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 1 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 257
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 150.00
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 250 150
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 110.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 1,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 63,000.00 46,196.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.04
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.94 2.09
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 2.03
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.64 0.46
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 1.72
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.76 0.22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 2 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 258
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 1.87
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.42 3.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 3 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 259
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.2570 20.2454 16.2928 0.0307 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 2,866.778
1
2,866.778
1
0.7696 0.0000 2,878.568
3
2022 10.4954 16.8082 18.0508 0.0344 0.6059 0.7890 1.3949 0.1614 0.7596 0.9210 0.0000 3,218.316
6
3,218.316
6
0.5662 0.0000 3,230.373
0
Maximum 10.4954 20.2454 18.0508 0.0344 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 3,218.316
6
3,218.316
6
0.7696 0.0000 3,230.373
0
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.2570 20.2454 16.2928 0.0307 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 2,866.778
1
2,866.778
1
0.7696 0.0000 2,878.568
3
2022 10.4954 16.8082 18.0508 0.0344 0.6059 0.7890 1.3949 0.1614 0.7596 0.9210 0.0000 3,218.316
6
3,218.316
6
0.5662 0.0000 3,230.373
0
Maximum 10.4954 20.2454 18.0508 0.0344 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 3,218.316
6
3,218.316
6
0.7696 0.0000 3,230.373
0
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 4 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 260
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Energy 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Mobile 0.1430 0.3037 0.5364 4.5000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.1000e-
004
1.0300e-
003
46.2144 46.2144 5.7600e-
003
46.3584
Total 1.6086 0.5327 5.8101 1.8000e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.0432 0.0444 3.2000e-
004
0.0431 0.0434 0.0000 270.8426 270.8426 0.0189 3.9500e-
003
272.4908
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Energy 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Mobile 0.1430 0.3037 0.5364 4.5000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.1000e-
004
1.0300e-
003
46.2144 46.2144 5.7600e-
003
46.3584
Total 1.6086 0.5327 5.8101 1.8000e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.0432 0.0444 3.2000e-
004
0.0431 0.0434 0.0000 270.8426 270.8426 0.0189 3.9500e-
003
272.4908
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 5 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 261
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/2/2021 10/6/2021 5 3
2 Grading Grading 10/7/2021 10/14/2021 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 10/15/2021 8/18/2022 5 220
4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2022 9/15/2022 5 110
5 Paving Paving 8/19/2022 9/1/2022 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 93,547; Residential Outdoor: 31,182; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,250; Striped Parking Area:
0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 6 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 262
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 48.00 7.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 10.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 7 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 263
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 8 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 264
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0319 0.0255 0.2579 7.2000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 71.3922 71.3922 2.1400e-
003
71.4458
Total 0.0319 0.0255 0.2579 7.2000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 71.3922 71.3922 2.1400e-
003
71.4458
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 9 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 265
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0319 0.0255 0.2579 7.2000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 71.3922 71.3922 2.1400e-
003
71.4458
Total 0.0319 0.0255 0.2579 7.2000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 71.3922 71.3922 2.1400e-
003
71.4458
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 10 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 266
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0398 0.0319 0.3224 9.0000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 89.2402 89.2402 2.6800e-
003
89.3072
Total 0.0398 0.0319 0.3224 9.0000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 89.2402 89.2402 2.6800e-
003
89.3072
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 11 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 267
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0398 0.0319 0.3224 9.0000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 89.2402 89.2402 2.6800e-
003
89.3072
Total 0.0398 0.0319 0.3224 9.0000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 89.2402 89.2402 2.6800e-
003
89.3072
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 12 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 268
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0208 0.6617 0.1826 1.4000e-
003
0.0325 1.8600e-
003
0.0344 9.3600e-
003
1.7800e-
003
0.0111 149.4895 149.4895 8.4200e-
003
149.7001
Worker 0.1912 0.1532 1.5473 4.3000e-
003
0.4745 2.9400e-
003
0.4775 0.1259 2.7100e-
003
0.1286 428.3531 428.3531 0.0129 428.6747
Total 0.2120 0.8148 1.7298 5.7000e-
003
0.5070 4.8000e-
003
0.5118 0.1352 4.4900e-
003
0.1397 577.8426 577.8426 0.0213 578.3747
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 13 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 269
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0208 0.6617 0.1826 1.4000e-
003
0.0325 1.8600e-
003
0.0344 9.3600e-
003
1.7800e-
003
0.0111 149.4895 149.4895 8.4200e-
003
149.7001
Worker 0.1912 0.1532 1.5473 4.3000e-
003
0.4745 2.9400e-
003
0.4775 0.1259 2.7100e-
003
0.1286 428.3531 428.3531 0.0129 428.6747
Total 0.2120 0.8148 1.7298 5.7000e-
003
0.5070 4.8000e-
003
0.5118 0.1352 4.4900e-
003
0.1397 577.8426 577.8426 0.0213 578.3747
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 14 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 270
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0192 0.6292 0.1684 1.3900e-
003
0.0325 1.6300e-
003
0.0341 9.3600e-
003
1.5600e-
003
0.0109 148.5011 148.5011 8.3200e-
003
148.7091
Worker 0.1794 0.1377 1.4198 4.1500e-
003
0.4745 2.8600e-
003
0.4774 0.1259 2.6300e-
003
0.1285 413.0369 413.0369 0.0115 413.3254
Total 0.1986 0.7670 1.5882 5.5400e-
003
0.5070 4.4900e-
003
0.5115 0.1352 4.1900e-
003
0.1394 561.5380 561.5380 0.0199 562.0344
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 15 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 271
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0192 0.6292 0.1684 1.3900e-
003
0.0325 1.6300e-
003
0.0341 9.3600e-
003
1.5600e-
003
0.0109 148.5011 148.5011 8.3200e-
003
148.7091
Worker 0.1794 0.1377 1.4198 4.1500e-
003
0.4745 2.8600e-
003
0.4774 0.1259 2.6300e-
003
0.1285 413.0369 413.0369 0.0115 413.3254
Total 0.1986 0.7670 1.5882 5.5400e-
003
0.5070 4.4900e-
003
0.5115 0.1352 4.1900e-
003
0.1394 561.5380 561.5380 0.0199 562.0344
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 8.1995 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Total 8.4040 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 16 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 272
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0374 0.0287 0.2958 8.6000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 86.0494 86.0494 2.4000e-
003
86.1095
Total 0.0374 0.0287 0.2958 8.6000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 86.0494 86.0494 2.4000e-
003
86.1095
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 8.1995 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Total 8.4040 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 17 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 273
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0374 0.0287 0.2958 8.6000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 86.0494 86.0494 2.4000e-
003
86.1095
Total 0.0374 0.0287 0.2958 8.6000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 86.0494 86.0494 2.4000e-
003
86.1095
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 18 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 274
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0561 0.0430 0.4437 1.3000e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 129.0740 129.0740 3.6100e-
003
129.1642
Total 0.0561 0.0430 0.4437 1.3000e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 129.0740 129.0740 3.6100e-
003
129.1642
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 19 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 275
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0561 0.0430 0.4437 1.3000e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 129.0740 129.0740 3.6100e-
003
129.1642
Total 0.0561 0.0430 0.4437 1.3000e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 129.0740 129.0740 3.6100e-
003
129.1642
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 20 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 276
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.1430 0.3037 0.5364 4.5000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.1000e-
004
1.0300e-
003
46.2144 46.2144 5.7600e-
003
46.3584
Unmitigated 0.1430 0.3037 0.5364 4.5000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
1.9700e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.1000e-
004
1.0300e-
003
46.2144 46.2144 5.7600e-
003
46.3584
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 117.81 127.89 108.36 510 510
Office Park 3.88 0.55 0.26 12 12
User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 121.69 128.44 108.62 522 522
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 0.01 0.01 0.01 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
Office Park 0.01 0.01 0.01 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3
User Defined Recreational 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 21 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 277
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Office Park 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
User Defined Recreational 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 22 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 278
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1760.35 0.0190 0.1622 0.0690 1.0400e-
003
0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 207.0999 207.0999 3.9700e-
003
3.8000e-
003
208.3306
Office Park 69.4356 7.5000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
8.1689 8.1689 1.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
8.2174
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.76035 0.0190 0.1622 0.0690 1.0400e-
003
0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 207.0999 207.0999 3.9700e-
003
3.8000e-
003
208.3306
Office Park 0.0694356 7.5000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
8.1689 8.1689 1.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
8.2174
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 23 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 279
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Unmitigated 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 24 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 280
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2471 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.0421 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.1566 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
9.5844
Total 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 25 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 281
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2471 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.0421 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.1566 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
9.5844
Total 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 26 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 282
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:02 AMPage 27 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Item 8.a - Page 283
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Acreage and SF revised based on project description: 2.16 total acres, 48,696 total SF.
Construction Phase - Architectural coating default settings extended to half of the building phase to reflect more realistic construction practices.
Architectural Coating - Updated per SLOAPCD Rule 433 VOC limits
Vehicle Trips - Central Coast Transportation Consulting Project TAZ VMT analysis identifies increase from project of 537 VMT.
Area Coating - updted per SLOAPCD Rule 433.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Office Park 1.20 1000sqft 0.03 1,200.00 0
User Defined Recreational 1.30 User Defined Unit 0.04 1,300.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 63.00 Dwelling Unit 2.09 46,196.00 180
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
San Luis Obispo County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 1 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 284
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 250.00 150.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 250.00 150.00
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 250 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 250 150
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 110.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 0.00 1,300.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 63,000.00 46,196.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.04
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.94 2.09
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HO_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HS_TL 5.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips HW_TL 13.00 0.01
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 2.03
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.64 0.46
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 1.72
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 0.76 0.22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 2 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 285
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 1.87
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.42 3.23
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 3 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 286
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.2855 20.2497 16.2709 0.0305 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 2,842.132
7
2,842.132
7
0.7695 0.0000 2,853.926
4
2022 10.5281 16.8259 18.0186 0.0341 0.6059 0.7891 1.3950 0.1614 0.7597 0.9211 0.0000 3,190.326
0
3,190.326
0
0.5660 0.0000 3,202.384
3
Maximum 10.5281 20.2497 18.0186 0.0341 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 3,190.326
0
3,190.326
0
0.7695 0.0000 3,202.384
3
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.2855 20.2497 16.2709 0.0305 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 2,842.132
7
2,842.132
7
0.7695 0.0000 2,853.926
4
2022 10.5281 16.8259 18.0186 0.0341 0.6059 0.7891 1.3950 0.1614 0.7597 0.9211 0.0000 3,190.326
0
3,190.326
0
0.5660 0.0000 3,202.384
3
Maximum 10.5281 20.2497 18.0186 0.0341 6.6512 0.9164 7.5676 3.3937 0.8431 4.2368 0.0000 3,190.326
0
3,190.326
0
0.7695 0.0000 3,202.384
3
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 4 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 287
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Energy 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Mobile 0.1360 0.3041 0.6845 4.2000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
8.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.4000e-
004
1.0600e-
003
42.7254 42.7254 6.7000e-
003
42.8930
Total 1.6015 0.5331 5.9583 1.7700e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.0432 0.0444 3.2000e-
004
0.0432 0.0435 0.0000 267.3536 267.3536 0.0198 3.9500e-
003
269.0254
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Energy 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Mobile 0.1360 0.3041 0.6845 4.2000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
8.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.4000e-
004
1.0600e-
003
42.7254 42.7254 6.7000e-
003
42.8930
Total 1.6015 0.5331 5.9583 1.7700e-
003
1.2100e-
003
0.0432 0.0444 3.2000e-
004
0.0432 0.0435 0.0000 267.3536 267.3536 0.0198 3.9500e-
003
269.0254
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 5 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 288
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/2/2021 10/6/2021 5 3
2 Grading Grading 10/7/2021 10/14/2021 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 10/15/2021 8/18/2022 5 220
4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/15/2022 9/15/2022 5 110
5 Paving Paving 8/19/2022 9/1/2022 5 10
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 93,547; Residential Outdoor: 31,182; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,750; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,250; Striped Parking Area:
0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 6 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 289
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 8 48.00 7.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 10.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 7 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 290
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 8 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 291
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0364 0.0290 0.2502 6.8000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 68.0491 68.0491 2.0700e-
003
68.1008
Total 0.0364 0.0290 0.2502 6.8000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 68.0491 68.0491 2.0700e-
003
68.1008
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 0.7019 0.7019 0.6457 0.6457 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Total 1.5463 18.2862 10.7496 0.0245 1.5908 0.7019 2.2926 0.1718 0.6457 0.8175 0.0000 2,372.883
2
2,372.883
2
0.7674 2,392.069
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 9 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 292
3.2 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0364 0.0290 0.2502 6.8000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 68.0491 68.0491 2.0700e-
003
68.1008
Total 0.0364 0.0290 0.2502 6.8000e-
004
0.0791 4.9000e-
004
0.0796 0.0210 4.5000e-
004
0.0214 68.0491 68.0491 2.0700e-
003
68.1008
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 10 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 293
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0455 0.0362 0.3128 8.5000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 85.0614 85.0614 2.5900e-
003
85.1260
Total 0.0455 0.0362 0.3128 8.5000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 85.0614 85.0614 2.5900e-
003
85.1260
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 0.9158 0.9158 0.8425 0.8425 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Total 1.8271 20.2135 9.7604 0.0206 6.5523 0.9158 7.4681 3.3675 0.8425 4.2100 0.0000 1,995.611
4
1,995.611
4
0.6454 2,011.747
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 11 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 294
3.3 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0455 0.0362 0.3128 8.5000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 85.0614 85.0614 2.5900e-
003
85.1260
Total 0.0455 0.0362 0.3128 8.5000e-
004
0.0989 6.1000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.6000e-
004
0.0268 85.0614 85.0614 2.5900e-
003
85.1260
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 12 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 295
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0221 0.6573 0.2067 1.3600e-
003
0.0325 1.9700e-
003
0.0345 9.3600e-
003
1.8800e-
003
0.0112 144.9025 144.9025 9.0200e-
003
145.1280
Worker 0.2184 0.1738 1.5013 4.1000e-
003
0.4745 2.9400e-
003
0.4775 0.1259 2.7100e-
003
0.1286 408.2947 408.2947 0.0124 408.6049
Total 0.2405 0.8311 1.7080 5.4600e-
003
0.5070 4.9100e-
003
0.5119 0.1352 4.5900e-
003
0.1398 553.1972 553.1972 0.0214 553.7329
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Total 2.0451 16.0275 14.5629 0.0250 0.8173 0.8173 0.7831 0.7831 0.0000 2,288.935
5
2,288.935
5
0.4503 2,300.193
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 13 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 296
3.4 Building Construction - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0221 0.6573 0.2067 1.3600e-
003
0.0325 1.9700e-
003
0.0345 9.3600e-
003
1.8800e-
003
0.0112 144.9025 144.9025 9.0200e-
003
145.1280
Worker 0.2184 0.1738 1.5013 4.1000e-
003
0.4745 2.9400e-
003
0.4775 0.1259 2.7100e-
003
0.1286 408.2947 408.2947 0.0124 408.6049
Total 0.2405 0.8311 1.7080 5.4600e-
003
0.5070 4.9100e-
003
0.5119 0.1352 4.5900e-
003
0.1398 553.1972 553.1972 0.0214 553.7329
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 14 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 297
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0204 0.6246 0.1911 1.3500e-
003
0.0325 1.7300e-
003
0.0342 9.3600e-
003
1.6600e-
003
0.0110 143.8740 143.8740 8.9100e-
003
144.0968
Worker 0.2054 0.1563 1.3743 3.9500e-
003
0.4745 2.8600e-
003
0.4774 0.1259 2.6300e-
003
0.1285 393.7015 393.7015 0.0111 393.9793
Total 0.2258 0.7809 1.5654 5.3000e-
003
0.5070 4.5900e-
003
0.5116 0.1352 4.2900e-
003
0.1395 537.5755 537.5755 0.0200 538.0762
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Total 1.8555 14.6040 14.3533 0.0250 0.7022 0.7022 0.6731 0.6731 0.0000 2,289.281
3
2,289.281
3
0.4417 2,300.323
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 15 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 298
3.4 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0204 0.6246 0.1911 1.3500e-
003
0.0325 1.7300e-
003
0.0342 9.3600e-
003
1.6600e-
003
0.0110 143.8740 143.8740 8.9100e-
003
144.0968
Worker 0.2054 0.1563 1.3743 3.9500e-
003
0.4745 2.8600e-
003
0.4774 0.1259 2.6300e-
003
0.1285 393.7015 393.7015 0.0111 393.9793
Total 0.2258 0.7809 1.5654 5.3000e-
003
0.5070 4.5900e-
003
0.5116 0.1352 4.2900e-
003
0.1395 537.5755 537.5755 0.0200 538.0762
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 8.1995 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Total 8.4040 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 16 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 299
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0428 0.0326 0.2863 8.2000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 82.0212 82.0212 2.3200e-
003
82.0790
Total 0.0428 0.0326 0.2863 8.2000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 82.0212 82.0212 2.3200e-
003
82.0790
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 8.1995 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.2045 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Total 8.4040 1.4085 1.8136 2.9700e-
003
0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0817 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0183 281.9062
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 17 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 300
3.5 Architectural Coating - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0428 0.0326 0.2863 8.2000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 82.0212 82.0212 2.3200e-
003
82.0790
Total 0.0428 0.0326 0.2863 8.2000e-
004
0.0989 5.9000e-
004
0.0995 0.0262 5.5000e-
004
0.0268 82.0212 82.0212 2.3200e-
003
82.0790
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 18 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 301
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0642 0.0488 0.4295 1.2300e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 123.0317 123.0317 3.4700e-
003
123.1185
Total 0.0642 0.0488 0.4295 1.2300e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 123.0317 123.0317 3.4700e-
003
123.1185
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.9412 9.3322 11.6970 0.0179 0.4879 0.4879 0.4500 0.4500 0.0000 1,709.689
2
1,709.689
2
0.5419 1,723.235
6
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 19 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 302
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.6 Paving - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0642 0.0488 0.4295 1.2300e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 123.0317 123.0317 3.4700e-
003
123.1185
Total 0.0642 0.0488 0.4295 1.2300e-
003
0.1483 8.9000e-
004
0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e-
004
0.0402 123.0317 123.0317 3.4700e-
003
123.1185
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 20 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 303
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.1360 0.3041 0.6845 4.2000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
8.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.4000e-
004
1.0600e-
003
42.7254 42.7254 6.7000e-
003
42.8930
Unmitigated 0.1360 0.3041 0.6845 4.2000e-
004
1.2100e-
003
8.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
003
3.2000e-
004
7.4000e-
004
1.0600e-
003
42.7254 42.7254 6.7000e-
003
42.8930
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 117.81 127.89 108.36 510 510
Office Park 3.88 0.55 0.26 12 12
User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 121.69 128.44 108.62 522 522
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 0.01 0.01 0.01 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
Office Park 0.01 0.01 0.01 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3
User Defined Recreational 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 21 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 304
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Office Park 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
User Defined Recreational 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 22 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 305
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1760.35 0.0190 0.1622 0.0690 1.0400e-
003
0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 207.0999 207.0999 3.9700e-
003
3.8000e-
003
208.3306
Office Park 69.4356 7.5000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
8.1689 8.1689 1.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
8.2174
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Apartments Low
Rise
1.76035 0.0190 0.1622 0.0690 1.0400e-
003
0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 0.0131 207.0999 207.0999 3.9700e-
003
3.8000e-
003
208.3306
Office Park 0.0694356 7.5000e-
004
6.8100e-
003
5.7200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
5.2000e-
004
8.1689 8.1689 1.6000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
8.2174
User Defined
Recreational
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0197 0.1690 0.0748 1.0800e-
003
0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 0.0136 215.2688 215.2688 4.1300e-
003
3.9500e-
003
216.5481
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 23 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 306
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Unmitigated 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 24 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 307
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2471 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.0421 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.1566 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
9.5844
Total 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 25 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 308
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.2471 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.0421 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.1566 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
9.5844
Total 1.4458 0.0599 5.1990 2.7000e-
004
0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0288 0.0000 9.3593 9.3593 9.0000e-
003
0.0000 9.5844
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 26 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 309
11.0 Vegetation
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 5/3/2021 8:03 AMPage 27 of 27
700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Item 8.a - Page 310
255581 Gasoline vehicles 538 Project VMT (CalEEMod output)
17933 Diesel vehicles 503
93.4%Gasoline vehicle %35
6.6%Diesel vehicle %
93.4%
0.0525 Tons per year mobile NOX emissions (annual output in CalEEMod)
0.05
0.0075
0.0068
1.60
19.64
0.08148
2.9
0.0000029
0.0068
298
2.0 CO2e emissions per year from N2O emissions from gasoline + diesel vehicles
*Vehicle population source:
EMFAC2017 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: San Luis Obispo
Calendar Year: 2021
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories
**Methodology source:
EMFAC2017 Volume III - Technical Documentation
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac2011-faq.htm
***GWP source:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007.
AR4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contrbution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Project Code & Title: 20-10818, 700 Oak Park Affordable Housing Project
N2O Operational GHG Emission Mobile Calculations
Metric tons per year from gasoline + diesel vehicles
GWP of N2O***
VMT per Vehicle Type
Gasoline vehicle VMT
Diesel vehicle VMT
CO2e Emissions from N2O
grams per mile N2O for diesel vehicles
grams per year N2O for diesel vehicles
Metric tons per year N2O emissions for diesel vehicles
Sources
Vehicle Population Breakdown*
Gasoline Vehicles
Gasoline vehicle %
Gasoline vehicle tons per year NOX emissions
Tons per year N2O emissions for gasoline vehicles**
Metric tons per year N2O emissions for gasoline vehicles
Diesel Vehicles
grams N2O per gallon of fuel for diesel vehicles**
Diesel average miles per gallon*
Item 8.a - Page 311
From:Megan Hanck
To:Andrew Perez
Cc:Alex Skilling
Subject:CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 21-001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-001
Date:Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:31:16 AM
Hi Andrew,
I learned through Nextdoor about the proposed HASLO mixed-use development, and
wanted to pass along my concerns.
I am concerned about an increase in traffic accidents with this proposal, especially
how it connects to El Camino Real. (https://link.edgepilot.com/s/30904565/lp-
6HEB3KEeZvTC5oOrUoQ?
u=http://www.arroyogrande.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/10864?fileID=16972)
I can easily imagine accidents/collisions between vehicles turning left from the intersection onto El Camino Real and cars leaving that
development (especially given the proposed density). I support developing that lot, but would like the density and parking requirements
described by the Office Mixed Use zoning to be maintained.
Thank you,
Megan Hanck
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the
link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to
proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
Item 8.a - Page 312
From:Rindy Ives
To:pc publiccomment
Subject:700-710 Oak Park El Camino affordable housing project
Date:Friday, April 16, 2021 3:35:51 PM
To Ken Sage, AG Planning Commissioner
As a homeowner (and it is expensive at that) on Chilton St my concerns of this proposed LARGE
development:
TRAFFIC on Chilton which is a small, well beat up street
Parking onto Chilton which is a small street
Noise
Accidents on the deadly Oak Park Blvd and El Camino Real and freeway
Neighborhood will be greatly impacted
Too large of a development
Neighborhood already has low income housing on other end of Chilton/Robles/El Camino Real
Traffic on Chilton
Parking on Chilton
Please be very aware I am NOT happy about this!
Thank you
Homeowner – Larinda Cummings,
Item 8.a - Page 313
From:Ron Schram
To:pc publiccomment
Subject:Low Income Housing El Camino Real at Oak Park Blvd
Date:Friday, April 16, 2021 6:55:21 PM
Dear Arroyo Grande City Council and Staff,
I understand the state mandate of creating affordable housing as the need is great. Lake
Lopez’ level is down to approximately 30% due to our lack of rain. Is it wise create additional
demand
at this time? I believe the stated number of 65 units is unreasonable as is the intended
three story units will negatively impact homeowners on Chilton Avenue and the value of their
properties.
The decisions you make us all and I would ask you to think carefully before approving such a
project at this time.
Respectfully,
Ron Schram
Arroyo Grande, CA
Item 8.a - Page 314
From:Sandy Bryant
To:pc publiccomment
Subject:Affordable Housing Project
Date:Saturday, April 17, 2021 6:38:39 PM
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
In regard to the Affordable Housing project being proposed at Oak Park and El Camino Real. I
appreciate the need for affordable housing in the area, but I’m concerned about the size of the
proposed project. It seems a rather large development to put in that ‘small’ area. What provision is
being made for parking for that number of residences, as well as for retail customers? There is also
the traffic issue and the impact to the neighborhood as a whole. I feel that in this case smaller
would be better.
Thank you for the opportunity to state my thoughts.
Sandra Bryant
Links contained in this email have been replaced. If you click on a link in the email above, the
link will be analyzed for known threats. If a known threat is found, you will not be able to
proceed to the destination. If suspicious content is detected, you will see a warning.
Item 8.a - Page 315
From:
To:pc publiccomment
Subject:700 Oak Park Blvd
Date:Friday, April 30, 2021 1:28:00 PM
Hello:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed development of the address referenced above;
specifically, the 65 housing units.
I believe that 65 additional residences on that corner would create a significant traffic problem. There are
congestion issues at the intersection of Oak Park Blvd and El Camino Real already.
Please consider how such an increase in residential traffic could be managed.
Thank you.
Debbie S. Ogden
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Item 8.a - Page 316
Item 8.a - Page 317
Item 8.a - Page 318
Item 8.a - Page 319
Item 8.a - Page 320
ATTACHMENT 11Item 8.a - Page 321
Item 8.a - Page 322
Item 8.a - Page 323
Item 8.a - Page 324
Item 8.a - Page 325
Item 8.a - Page 326
Item 8.a - Page 327
Item 8.a - Page 328
Item 8.a - Page 329
Item 8.a - Page 330
Item 8.a - Page 331
Item 8.a - Page 332
Item 8.a - Page 333
Item 8.a - Page 334
Item 8.a - Page 335
Item 8.a - Page 336
Item 8.a - Page 337
Item 8.a - Page 338
Item 8.a - Page 339
Item 8.a - Page 340
Item 8.a - Page 341
Item 8.a - Page 342
Item 8.a - Page 343
Item 8.a - Page 344
Item 8.a - Page 345
Item 8.a - Page 346
Item 8.a - Page 347
Item 8.a - Page 348