CC 2014-05-13_08.i. Well No. 11
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: AILEEN NYGAARD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 13-004;
APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN
IMPROVEMENTS FOR WELL NO. 11; LOCATION- LA CANADA NEAR
ROSEMARY COURT
DATE: MAY 13, 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Negative
Declaration, directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination (NOD), and
approving the project plans and specifications for the Well 11 Improvement Project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Capital Improvement Program budget and contract administration will be
considered as a separate resolution at City Council after the bid process. The current
design process is complete and bids are expected to be processed in late summer after
receiving approval by the State Health Department.
BACKGROUND:
On May 12, 2012 Taos Holding Corporation dedicated Well 11 and an easement to the
City as required by a condition of approval for Tract 1998 to help mitigate impacts of the
project on the City’s water supply. The City Council accepted the easement on June 12,
2012. The existing well is located on the south side of La Canada Street approximately
800 feet north of the intersection of James Way and was drilled and developed to provide
irrigation water for the Rancho Grande project.
The well was constructed in 1992 with a PVC casing that is 6 inches in diameter and 305
feet deep. The project involves the conversion of the well to residential water quality
standards. The scope of work includes the construction of a well pump building equipped
with water quality treatment equipment, a 240 ft. waterline to connect the well to the
treatment facility, and waterline to directly connect the new facility into the City’s water
main on La Canada Street. A sewer line will also be installed to route all flushing water
and the building floor drain into the City’s sewer main.
Item 8.i. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 13-004
MAY 13, 2014
PAGE 2
Well No.11 is located in the Pismo Formation aquifer, also identified as the Oak Park
Aquifer. The Department of Water Resources does not identify this aquifer as in a state
of overdraft. The estimated yield of the aquifer is 540 acre feet per year (AFY). The
aquifer is not subject to the Groundwater Management Agreement and the aquifer is not
adjudicated. The City operates two other wells in the aquifer, Wells No.9 and No.10.
Each of these can be pumped at 80 AFY. The City Water Master Plan identifies the
ultimate extraction from the Pismo Formation wells at 200 AFY (Well no. 9 - 80 AFY,
Well no. 10- 80 AFY and Well no.11- 40 AFY).
Architectural Review
Well 11 is located in the area of future Lot 1 and the 400 square foot water treatment
building is located on the fringes of the oak woodland open space near the future
location of the entry road. Maintenance access for the well and the treatment facility is
directly from La Canada. The well structure requires a solid paved driveway and the
treatment facility access may have permeable pavers. In addition, the project includes a
roof mounted antenna to operate facility equipment and a skylight mounted on the rear
side of the roof facing away from the street. The landscape plan provides oak trees at
the front of the treatment facility structure while native shrubs, such as ceanothus and
coffee berry, are proposed around the structure and well house to provide screening.
The well house will also have fencing for screening. Hand watering will be provided as
needed until establishment. With the tract improvements, a future public path is planned
to be installed along La Canada that will run in front of the treatment building. Staff
anticipates no conflicts between these uses.
At the December 2, 2013 meeting, the Architectural Review Committee reviewed
improvement plans for the well structure and for the water treatment facility. The
Committee discussed the location of the facility as the entrance to three Rancho Grande
neighborhoods and reached a consensus that aesthetics were an important
consideration. The Committee recommended that another design alternative be
prepared for the treatment facility with a two-tone color option from a single material.
The Committee also recommended that neighbors be consulted regarding preference of
design.
Staff met with neighbors that reside directly across La Canada from the project site
January 2, 2014 and opinions were split between the rock base design and the idea of a
two-tone single material building. Staff prepared new design alternatives based on their
input. The Architectural Review Committee reviewed these three alternative designs for
the treatment facility building on May 5, 2014.
Public notices regarding the project were sent to property owners within 300’ of the
property and one comment was received by staff as a result. Staff met with neighbors
that reside directly across La Canada from the project site again on May 2, 2014. La
Canada neighbors contacted showed preference toward the design with the decorative
rock base.
Item 8.i. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 13-004
MAY 13, 2014
PAGE 3
LOCATION:
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The City retained a geologist to perform well interference testing to ascertain what, if
any, effect sustained pumping of Well No. 11 could have on the three nearest private
wells. This study concludes: “City Well 11 produces from a Pismo Formation sandstone
aquifer that outcrops north of James Way and is tapped by private domestic wells at the
south end of Easy Street and by City Well 10. Results of the two-week pumping test are
interpreted to indicate that Well 11 can sustain a 40 gpm pumping rate, pending
verification monitoring to confirm available seasonal recharge. Water level interference
at the closest private domestic wells along Easy Street, following a year of continuous
pumping by Well 11 at 40 gpm with no recharge to the aquifer, is estimated at 8 feet.
These private wells are sufficiently deep to continue operating at normal capacity.” Note
the assumption in a given year is no aquifer recharge (worst case). The forecast
pumping level is 45 AFY, assuming down time for maintenance, the planned yield is 40
AFY. On this basis and because there is no evidence that the cumulative extractions
within the aquifer will exceed the safe yield of 540 AFY, no significant impact to the
ground water basin is identified.
The new water treatment facility building will be prominently located near the
intersection of La Canada and the future Tract 1998 entry with the oak woodland open
space as the backdrop. The building sets approximately 30’ back from the street and is
Item 8.i. - Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 13-004
MAY 13, 2014
PAGE 4
also located near the entrance of The Highlands and Las Jollas neighborhoods. The
Architectural Review Committee originally reviewed a building option that was split-
faced block construction with a light colored decorative stone base, dark gray concrete
tile with cedar wood siding accents and doors.
The discussion by ARC members revolved around what type of building aesthetic would
best fit in this location. Some members expressed that a structure that blended with the
background and did not draw attention was preferable. Others expressed that the
structure would be noticeable, and a solution that was attractive would be preferable.
The ARC reviewed three revised alternatives at the second meeting: 1) an improved
version of the decorative rock base building, 2) a two-tone split-face block building, and
3) a single slump block material design. Two neighbors attended the meeting and
expressed concerns regarding the look of the building and potential confusion with a
park restroom or a commercial storage shed. The ARC recommended that a split-face
block design of a single dark gray color would be the best solution to blend into the
natural surroundings. The Committee also recommended that a fast growing tree
species be planted along with the proposed oaks to act as a temporary screen. More
screening in front of the building is not feasible due to the limited easement size.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the City Council’s consideration:
Adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration, directing the City Clerk
to file a Notice of Determination (NOD), and approving the project plans and
specifications for the Well 11 Improvement Project;
Modify and adopt the resolution;
Do not adopt the resolution;
Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The proposed project will provide new potable water resources for the City.
DISADVANTAGES:
Design aesthetics may provide confusion with a park restroom and attract visitors
looking for a different type of facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff has reviewed the proposed project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and prepared a Negative Declaration.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT:
Public notice was given to property owners within a 300’ radius of the project site on
March 21, 2013 regarding the availability of the Negative Declaration. On May 2, 2013
neighbors across from the site and interested parties were given notice of the public
Item 8.i. - Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 13-004
MAY 13, 2014
PAGE 5
ARC meeting. Additionally a notice was also posted in front of City Hall and on the
City’s website on May 9, 2014 regarding the item on the City Council consent agenda.
Staff received one email comment (attachment 4), received direct comments from five
neighbors in the field, and two neighbors attended the ARC meeting. Design
preferences in the field indicated a stone base preference and at the ARC meeting, one
neighbor preferred a simpler plain design (but not the slump stone) and the other
neighbor did not express a preference.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Negative Declaration
2. State Clearinghouse review clearance, March 25, 2014
3. Minutes
4. Email from Don Dirske, March 29, 2014
5. Illustrative exhibit revised per ARC May 5, 2013 direction.
Item 8.i. - Page 5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE
A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING
DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS FOR WELL 11; CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 13-004; LOCATED ON LA
CANADA NEAR ROSEMARY COURT
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2012, Taos Holding Corporation offered for dedication to the City
of Arroyo Grande ("City") Well 11 and an easement pursuant to conditions of approval for
Tract 1998; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2012, the City Council accepted said offer of dedication; and
·WHEREAS, on May 13, 2014, at a duly noticed public hearing the City Council
considered Capital Improvement Project No. 13-004 consisting of certain design
improvements for Well 11 including the construction of a water treatment facility,
connection pipes and related appurtenances (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
Required CEQA Findings:
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section 15063
of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the
Project.
2. Based on the initial study, a Negative Declaration was prepared for public review.
A copy of the Negative Declaration and related materials is located at City Hall in
the Community Development Department.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and considering
the record as a whole, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence
of any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife
resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this Project.
Further, the City Council finds that said Negative Declaration reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, instructs the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Determination, and hereby approves the design improvements for Capital Improvement
Project No. 13-004, copies of which are on file with the Community Development
Department.
Item 8.i. - Page 6
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE2
On motion by Council Member ___ , seconded by Council Member ___ , and by
the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 131h day of May, 2014.
Item 8.i. - Page 7
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE3
TONYFERRARA,MAYOR
ATTEST:
KELLY WETMORE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Item 8.i. - Page 8
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
DATE: February 17, 2014
TO: INTERESTED PARTIES
(805) 473-5444
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT: Arroyo Grande Municipal Water Well No. 11 Development
ATIACHMENT 1
The. Proposed Project consists development of pump appurtenances and a filtration structure· to
facilitate operation of an existing, as yet unused, City water well. Underground utilities will connect the
well to the filtration facility and connect the filtration facility to the sewer for periodic flushing.
The City has prepared a draft Negative Declaratiol"] (ND) pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The City
requests that you review the enclosed materials and provide any appropriate comments related to your
agency's area of responsibility. The proposed ND, the Initial Study and. supporting materials are
available for review and inspection at the City Community Development Department located at 300 East
Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California.
The space below may be used to indicate that your agency has no comments or to state brief comments.
If you comment on the MND you will be notified of any public meeting where the adoption of the MND
will be considered. If you have any questions, please contact the City's consultant, David Foote at (805)
781·9800, fax (805) 781·9803. Please respond by 5:00P.M. March 21, 2014.
Distribution: (page 3)
No Comments provided
Comments noted below
Comments provided in separate letter
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________ __
Return to: David Foote ASLA
c/o firma
187 Tank Farm Road Suite 230
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
805.781.9800 FAX.805.781.9803
From: Agency Name:
Contact Person: --------------------------
Phone Number:
Item 8.i. - Page 9
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR MUNICIPAL WATER WELL NO. 11 DEVELOPMENT
LEAD AGENCY:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO:
PROJECT SPONSOR:
ADDRESS:
PROJECT LOCATION:
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
(805) 473-5444
City of Arroyo Grande
same
The project is located on Lots 1 and 6, Tract 1998, 400 Block of La Canada near James Way.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Proposed Project consists development of pump appurtenances and a filtration structure to facilitate operation
of the existing as yet unused City water well no. 11. Underground utilities will connect the well to the filtration facility
and connect the filtration facility to the sewer for periodic flushing. The Project includes a low retaining wall at the
water well and fencing around the structures. The Project includes landscape screening.
PROPOSED FINDINGS:
The City of Solvang has reviewed the above project in accordance with the City's Rules and Procedures for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and has determined that:
[X] The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment.
[X ] On the basis of the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), there is
no substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment.
[X] The Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Project reflect the independent judgment and analysis of
the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached. The Initial Study, along with
supporting documents referenced in the Initial Study and other documents and materials which constitute the
record of proceedings upon which the adoption of this Negative Declaration is based will be kept on file at the
Community Department office located at 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande CA 93420, telephone (805) 473-
5444. The custodian of such records is the Community Development Director.
DRAFT PREPARED BY: FIRMA
DATE: February 17 2014
REVIEW PERIOD: 2-20-14 to 3-21-14
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420 (805) 473-5444
I. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FORM
1. Project Title:
Arroyo Grande Municipal Water Well No.11 Development
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Consultant:
David Foote, c/o firma, (805) 781-9800
City Staff:
Michael Linn, Assistant City Engineer
(805) 473-5444
4. Project Location:
Lot 1 and 16 of Tract 1998
Four Hundred Block of La Canada, off James Way
APN 007-781-024
(See map 1 attached.)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department
6. General Plan Designation:
ConseNation Open Space
7. Zoning:
PO 1.2
8. Description of the Project:
The Project is the installation of an underground power line connection to an existing well and a small water treatment
facility on La Canada, construction of a wellhead .enclosure fence, and water line construction and connection from the
pump to the proposed new water treatment facility building to be constructed approximately 240 feet to the south of the
existing well. The treatment building is approximately 400 square feet in size. From that building a water line will be
constructed to tie in to the existing water main in La Canada. A sewer line will also be constructed from the facility to the City
sewer main in La Canada. This pipeline will provide for the filter flushing and a floor drain inside the treatment facility
building. Landscaping will be provided for screening. Street reconstruction will be done where necessary. (See Map 2
attached)
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 10
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420 (805) 473-5444
The well site is 400 square feet with 25 feet depth and 16 feet wide with a westerly frontage upon La Canada, a public
street. The existing well is approximately 190 feet from a small existing stream bed. The treatment plant site is 1200 square
feet 40 feet deep and 30 feet wide with a westerly frontage upon La Canada.
No on-site lighting shall be activated during non-emergency activities in order that the semi-rural nature of the neighborhood
is maintained. Exterior lighting shall be activated only for emergency repairs and activities.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The neighborhood is composed of single and two-story residences on large lots in a semi-rural atmosphere.
The neighborhood was developed within the City of Arroyo Grande in the 1990s with full urban services such
as water, sanitary sewer, electric, natural gas, drainage and paved streets. All utilities are underground in the
neighborhood.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is required:
The Department of Public Health must permit the well/filtration plant.
11. Previous Environmental Review
The subject property underwent CEQA review as part of Tract 1998 in which a Revised Subsequent Environmental Impact
Report and Addendum was certified. In addition the subject well was identified and part of analyses of groundwater in the
2006 DEIR for the Los Robles del Mar Annexation prepared by the Local Agency Formation Commission.
12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project.
D Aesthetics D Hazards and Hazardous D Public Services
Materials
D Agriculture Resources D Hydrology and Water D Recreation
Quality
D Air Quality Greenhouse D Land Use and Planning D Transportation and Traffic
Gas Emissions
D Biological Resources D Mineral Resources D Utilities and Service Systems
D Cultural Resources D Noise D Greenhouse Gas Emissions
D Geology and Soils D Population and Housing D Mandatory Findings of
Significance
[8] There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife
resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends.
D The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees
pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
12. Determination: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
Initial Environmental Study
2
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420 (805) 473-5444
~ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project applicant in the form of
a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact
on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described
on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further
is required.
Signature
David Foote ASLA, Firma Consultants
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
3
Date: February 17,2014
For: The City of Arroyo Grande
Teresa McClish, Community Development Director
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 11
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
Arroyo Grande Water Well No. 11
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
(805) 473-5444
Location MAP 1
Initial Environmental Study
4
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
;
\
I
I
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
5
(805) 4 73-5444
·::
;::
't:
.. ..
f'
c
ro
o_
(])
+-'
0 z
(]) s
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 12
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420 (805) 473-5444
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
httime views in the area?
Impact Discussion:
5
5
5
X
X
X
X X
1 a-c. Environmental Setting: The project area is located in an open space parcel that is part of Planned Development Tract
1998 and adjacent to a developed residential area . The character is suburban I rural with single family residences.
Regulatory Setting: Conservation Open Space policies C/0 S 1-1.1 defines scenic resources to include natural features
such as woodlands and streams, C/OS1-1.4 directs development to locate structures to minimize visual impacts. Impact
Threshold: Activities that are inconsistent with community standards expressed in the Agriculture, Open Space and
Conservation Element and which substantially alter the scenic character would result in a significant impact on visual
resources.
Potential Impacts: The proposed project basic elements consist of a small structure made of split-face masonry block,
wood fence well enclosures and a 2 ft. 8 inch tall retaining wall. The facilities are small scale (14.3 ft tall building) with
rural design details and incidental to the overall open space viewshed. Native landscape screening is proposed as part
of the project. The project would not substantially alter the character of the area or block important views, therefore no
significant visual impact is identified.
1d. Because lighting is proposed to only be used during emergency nighttime servicing of the facilities no light or glare
impacts are identified.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
6
Initial Environmental Study
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to no ricultural use?
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
3
3
3
2a-c. Environmental Setting: The site is not in an agricultural area and no impacts are identified.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
7
X
X
X
X
X
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 13
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
em1ss1ons which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
X
X
X
3a. Environmental Setting: The site is in the developed portion of Arroyo Grande. Regulatory Setting: The San Luis Obispo County
APCD Clean Air Plan 2001 (CAP) establishes impact significance thresholds and recommended mitigation strategies.
Threshold: Land Use activities inconsistent with the CAP could be potentially significant. Impact Analysis: Public water
infrastructure projects that serve existing population are consistent with the CAP.
3b-c. Environmental and Regulatory Setting: San Luis Obispo County exceeds the state standard for PM 10 bfugitive dust) and the
state 8-hour ozone standard. Thresholds: Construction emission and PM 10 thresholds apply. The PM 1 threshold is 2.5 tons
per quarter, diesel PM (DPM) is 7 lbs per day. Construction activities that involve earth moving and ground disturbance that
could generate dust are very limited. For this reason no significant PM 10 impacts are identified. Due to the fact that no heavy
equipment such as graders or excavators or the use of diesel generators are required for construction, no significant DPM
emission impacts are identified.
3d-e. There are no activities that would result in odors or impacts on sensitive receptors.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
8
Initial Environmental Study
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
3
3
3
3
3
3
(805) 473-5444
X
X
X
X
X
X
Initial Environmental Study
9
Item 8.i. - Page 14
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
4a-d. Environmental Setting: The project site adjoins a public street and has been disturbed in the past with construction of the
surrounding residential tract. The pump house site is about 30 feet from an unnamed drainage ravine flowing to Meadow
Creek that is characterized by non-native eucalyptus as well as native willow cover. The EIR for Tract 1998 (2005)
undertook extensive surveys for sensitive botanical species, notably Pismo Clarkia. No Pismo Clarkia was identified in
multiple surveys on the side of the drainage way where the proposed project will be constructed. The EIR identified the
drainage way as a wildlife movement corridor. Regulatory Setting: City policies C/OS2-1.3 and C/OS2-4 call for a minimum
25 foot setback from creeks and drainage ways, where feasible, and protection of wildlife corridors. A 50 foot setback was
approved for the project applicable to residential lot lines, exclusive of infrastructure. Impact threshold: Removal or
disruption of active bird nests, sensitive species such as Pismo Clarkia or riparian willow woodland, and changes to wildlife
movement corridors would be significant impacts.
Impact analysis: The proposed treatment building is approximately 30 feet away from the top of bank of the drainage way.
The project would not result in the removal of willows, oak trees or any sensitive plant species. Construction is outside the
canopy drip line of nearby Coast Live Oak trees. As a result, no substantial change to the qualities and characteristics of the
wildlife movement corridor is identified. No significant impacts on biological resources are identified.
4e-f. The project does not conflict with any adopted plans or policies for the area.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
project:
Would the
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Impact Discussion:
3
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
5a-d. Environmental Setting: The site is in a previously developed area of the city immediately adjacent to La Canada, a public
street. Generally, all areas within the City are considered potentially sensitive archaeologically due to Native American occupation
centers nearby. The General Plan Agriculture, Open Space and Conservation Element does not identify the area as high potential
for paleontological resources. Impact Threshold: Any of (a) through (d) above.
Potential Impacts: Based on the archaeological investigations of this site in the EIR for Tract 1998, the area has the potential for
significant cultural resources to be present. However, this portion of Tract 1998 adjoins La Canada Street and is within the
construction limits for that roadway grading and utility excavation completed in the 1990's. No potential significant impact is
identified because 1) the area is disturbed and if materials were present monitoring for that tract would have identified them, 2) due
to disturbance from this previous earthwork for road construction any incidental cultural resources undetected would have their
integrity compromised resulting in a less than significant resource deposit and 3) the ground surface disturbing activities for the
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
10
Initial Environmental Study
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
proposed project are very limited in area.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
project:
Would the
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
d of waste water?
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
(805) 473-5444
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Initial Environmental Study
11
Item 8.i. - Page 15
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
6a-e. Environmental Setting: The site is in a region with a risk of seismic events, however tsunami and seiche are not factors.
Slopes are gentle with no risk of landslide. Regulatory Setting: The City has adopted the latest California building code.
Impact thresholds: Any of (a) through (e) above. Impact Analysis: The only identified risk is seismic hazard. Because the
structure is not habitable and not adjoining other structures, and must comply with the California building code no impact
due to seismic risk is identified.
1. GREENHOUSE
Would the project:
GAS EMISSIONS.
a) Generate greenhouse gas em1ss1ons,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Impact Discussion:
6,7 X
6,7 X
7a-b. Environmental Setting: Global climate change is a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its
incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases. The Project electricity
demand would result in increases in C02 from existing stationary source power plants.
Regulatory setting and Impact thresholds: The APCD has established interim significance thresholds for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. However, the stationary source threshold is not for individual electrical demand sources such as this project, but
stationary sources such as industrial power plants. The APCD recommends that all projects subject to CEQA review be considered in
the context of GHG emissions and climate change impacts and that CEQA documents should include a quantification of GHG
emissions from all project sources, direct and indirect, as applicable. The APCD has developed the Central Coast GHG Planning
Measure Evaluation Toolbox to provide cities with measures that can be applied to projects to reduce GHG. The City of Arroyo
Grande has not adopted impact significance thresholds for GHG, however as a matter of policy projects are required to reduce
emissions and energy use to the degree feasible.
Impact and Mitigation analysis: Using the CAPCOA recommended values for calculating C02 produced to provide electric energy to
the project, C02 production is estimated at 8.1 tons per year. (This based on actual Well No.1 0 electrical use down-factored for Well
No.11 pumping 50% of the Well No.1 0 volume.) The only applicable mitigation strategy from the Central Coast GHG Planning
Toolbox is the use of solar energy to power the well pump. However, due to the small available site area for photovoltaic panels and
presence of existing trees that would shade the panels, this measure is not feasible. In this context and based on th~ relative small
size of this project the City finds that all feasible mitigation has been included to reduce cumulative indirect impacts related to GHG to
the degree feasible.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
12
Initial Environmental Study
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
13
(805) 473-5444
X
X
X
x·
X
X
X
X
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 16
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
Ba-d The proposed project does involve the use of hazardous materials for water treatment. Hazardous materials are used for the
routine treatment of well water and are not considered a serious risk to the public or environment, because these must be
handled and stored in a manner prescribed by law for the material.
8e-f The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of an airport, airport land use plan or private airstrip.
8g The proposed project does not involve activities capable of impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed site design meet local Fire Department
standards for ingress and egress.
8h The project is to be constructed from low combustible materials that would not place structures at substantial risk of harm
from wildfire.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or oft-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-
or oft-site?
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
X
1,2 X
X
X
Initial Environmental Study
14
City of Arroyo Grande ·
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420 (805) 473-5444
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing· or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
3 polluted runoff? X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? 3 X
h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
3 X flood flows?
I) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? 3 X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Impact Discussion:
9a. Environmental Setting: The site is in a developed area of the City with established urban runoff patterns. Regulatory Setting:
The project must meet the General Permit requirements for storm water quality leaving the site. Impact Threshold:
Inconsistency with adopted stormwater management requirements would result in a significant impact. In the City all
projects are required to meet the Best Management Practices (BMP) standards for construction phase storm water runoff
and to maintain the on-site BMPs. The Proposed Project shall implement BMPs to manage water quality by providing on-site
runoff treatment in conformance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board General Permit and the City's Storm Water
Management Plan. With compliance with this standard requirement, the Proposed Project's storm water pollutant load would
be minimal, and would result in a less-than-significant impact.
9b. Environmental Setting: Well No.11 is located in the Pismo Formation aquifer, also variously identified as the Oak Park
Aquifer. The Department of Water Resources does not identify this aquifer as in a state of overdraft. The estimated yield of
the Oak Park Area aquifer is 540 acre feet per year (AFY). The aquifer is not subject to the Groundwater Management
Agreement and the aquifer is not adjudicated. The City operates two other wells in the aquifer, Wells No.9 and No.1 0. Each
of these ~an be. pumped at 80 AFY. The City Water Master Plan identifies the extraction from the Pismo Formation wells at
200 AFY (well no. 9-80 AFY, well no. 10-80 AFY and well no.11-40 AFY). The Los Robles del Mar annexation in Pismo
Beach has proposed to utilize a well also in the Pismo Formation. However, this project has been denied by the Local
Agency Formation Commission.
Regulatory Setting: According to the City Urban Water Management Plan: "The City exercises an appropriative right to
pump water supply from the Pismo Formation for reasonable and beneficial use. The City's appropriative right allows it to
pump available groundwater surplus to the needs of all existing overlaying rights in the basin". Other private wells in the city
access the Pismo Formation near Well No. 11.
Impact threshold: The project would have significant impacts on groundwater resources if it would substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
15
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 17
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420 (805) 473-5444
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted).
Impact Analysis: The City retained a geologist to perform well interference testing to ascertain what, if any, effect sustained
pumping of Well No. 11 could have on the three nearest private wells. This study is attached to this Initial Study. This study
concludes: "City Well 11 produces from a Pismo Formation sandstone aquifer that outcrops north of James Way and is
tapped by private domestic wells at the south end of Easy Street and by City Well 10. Results of the two-week pumping test
are interpreted to indicate that Well 11 can sustain a 40 gpm pumping rate, pending verification monitoring to confirm
available seasonal recharge. Water level interference at the closest private domestic wells along Easy Street, following a
year of continuous pumping by Well 11 at 40 gpm with no recharge to the aquifer, is estimated at 8 feet These private wells
are sufficiently deep to continue operating at normal capacity." Note the assumption in a given year is no aquifer recharge
(worst case). The forecast pumping level is 45 AFY, assuming down time for maintenance the planned yield is 40 AFY. ·on
this basis and because there is no evidence that the cumulative extractions within the aquifer will exceed the safe yield of
540 AFY, no significant impact is identified.
9c-d. Environmental Setting: The site currently receives stormwater runoff from adjoining properties to the north. Regulatory
Setting: The Project must comply with the adopted building code regulating cross-site stormwater runoff. Potential Impacts:
Since the Project grading plans must comply with the building code, no impact is identified for stormwater runoff increases
or flooding.
9e-f. The Public Works Department has not identified any downstream storm drain system capacity problems. The site will drain
to the public street
9g-j. The project would not place structures in a manner that would result in hazards to people or structures.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation lan?
Impact Discussion:
1 Oa-c. The Proposed Project would not physically divide the community or conflict with a regulation or policy.
X
X
X
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
Initial Environmental Study
16
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
11. MINERAL RESOURCES.
project:
Would the
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Impact Discussion:
11 a-b. The Project site does not contain mineral resources.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
3
(805) 473-5444
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Initial Environmental Study
17
Item 8.i. - Page 18
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
1 X
12a-d. Environmental Setting: The ambient noise environment is well under 60 dBA using the Noise Element exhibit 12 for 2008
noise levels. Regulatory Setting: The Noise Element and Noise Ordinance regulate noise. Impact Threshold: For
residential land use the threshold is 60 dBA Ldn for exterior and 40 dBA Ldn interior. Impact Analysis: The City Noise
Ordinance requires construction activities to be limited to weekdays between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m to avoid temporary
stationary noise impacts. No mitigation is required. Operational noise is limited to the new submersible pump in the well
which will essentially not be audible. The filter flush activity in the treatment building will generate periodic noise from
flowing water, however, because the activity is inside a masonry building no significant outside noise level change will
result.
12e-f. The project site is not located within the vicinity of any airport or airstrip.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of re-
placement housing elsewhere?
Impact Discussion:
X
X
X
13a-c. The Project will not directly add population. The added water supply is identified in the UWMP as necessary for General
Plan population.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
18
Initial Environmental Study
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
14. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
X
X
X
X
X
14a. The project is not anticipated to physically impact service ratios, response times or other performance objectives of any
governmental facility in the vicinity of the area.
15. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Impact Discussion:
X
X
15a-b The project, in itself, would not result in the deterioration of recreation facilities or require new facilities that could impact the
environment.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
19
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 19
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Di=welopment Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
16. TRANSPORTATION I TRAFFIC: Would
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by
the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transpor-
tation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Impact Discussion:
(805) 473-5444
3 X
3 X
X
X
X
X
X
16a-g. The project has no traffic generation component other than short term addition of construction vehicles and short term
weekly maintenance visits. Off street parking is provided for the maintenance vehicles. This effect is not significant.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment require-
ments of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
X
Initial Environmental Study
20
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or·may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Impact Discussion:
(805) 4 73-5444
1 X
1 X
1 X
1 X
1 X
1 X
17a-g. The project will supply water to meet population projections under the General Plan. Periodic filter flush flow to the sewer is
not a significant addition to the wastewater flow in the city.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
21
Initial Environmental Study
Item 8.i. - Page 20
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFI-
CANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
. individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively consider-
able" means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Impact Discussion:
3
1,2,3,7
18a. No significant impacts to biological resources are identified.
(805) 473-5444
X
X
X
18b. The proposed project may have a temporary cumulative impacts on air quality and noise levels due to construction
activities, however, these impacts are less than significant.
18c. There is no evidence that the project would result in potential adverse effects to people.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one of more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify
the fol items:
a) Earlier analysis used.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development Initial Environmental Study
February 2014 ·
22
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande CA 93420 (805) 473-5444
Vesting Tentative Tract Map and PUD 01-001 Revised Final Subsequent EIR.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. (Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.)
Biological resource impacts and Cultural resource impacts.
c) Mitigation measures. (For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.)
None.
Arroyo Grande Water Well No.11 Development
February 2014
Initial Environmental Study
23
Item 8.i. - Page 21
ATTACHMENT 2
S T ATE OF C A L I F 0 R N I A
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
Edmund. G. Brown Jr.
.Governor
March 25, 2014
Teresa McClish
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
-I RECEIVED
MAR-81 2014
CITY OF ARRoYo
l.£0MMUNITY nr.,;. GRANDe -"w-c~NT -
Subject: Arroyo Grande Well No. 11 Development
SCH#: 2014021041
Dear Teresa McClish:
Ken Alex
Director
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review. The review period closed on March 24, 2014, and no state agencies submitted comments by that
date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements
for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
· ten-digit State Clearinghouse numher -.':hen contacting this office.
Sincerely, ~rrcScot~::~an-~
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, C.A.LIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEL (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Item 8.i. - Page 22
_DQ~!JJJ1ei'J1 DetaULReP-.QIJ_
--·--------··--------~-t~J~~l~~-~rJ.n_g·li9._1l_~~~fP_At~t~B-~_-§~~~---
SCH# 2014021041
Project Title Arroyo Grande Well No. 11 Development
Lead Agency Arroyo Grande, City of
Type Neg Negative Declaration
Description The Proposed Project consists development of pump appurtenances and a filtration structure to
facilitate operation of an existing, as yet unused, City water well. Underground utilities will connect the
well to the_ filtration facility and connect the filtration facility to the sewer for periodic flushing.
Lead Agency Contact
Teresa McClish Name
Agency
Phone
City of Arroyo Grande
805 688 4414
email
Address 300 East Branch Street
City Arroyo Grande
Project Location
County San Luis Obispo
City Arroyo Grande
Region
Lat! Long
·Cross Streets La Canada and James Way
Parcel No. 007.-781-024
Township
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports
Railways
WaterWays
Schools
Range
Land Use Planned Development
Fax
State CA Zip 93420
Section Base
Project Issues Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Biological Resources; Noise; Vegetation; Water Supply
Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4; Department of Parks ;3nd Recreation;
Agencies Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, District 5; CA Department of Public Health; Air Resources
Board; State Water Resources Control Board, Divison of FinanCial Assistance; Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Region 3; Native American Heritage Commission
Date Received 02/20/2014 Start of Review 02/21/2014 End of Review 03/24/2014
Item 8.i. - Page 23
ARC MINUTES
DECEMBER 2, 2013
• T plants should be labeled
·ng attention to the entrance is a good thing
ATIACHMENT 3
Tom Goss m de a motion, seconded by Randy Russom, to recommend to the City
Council approv of the use of CDBG funds for the project and approval of the design of
the park with the f lowing suggestions:
1. Encourage th use of storyboards/interpretive displays;
2. Inclusion of one 1) picnic table;
Tom Goss -Yes
Chuck Fellows-Yes
Warren Haag-Yes
ike Peachey-Yes
R dy Russom-Yes
Tom Goss made a motion, seconded by ike Peachey, to continue the meeting beyond
5:00pm.
The motion carried on a 4-1 voice vote:
Tom Goss -Yes
Chuck Fellows -No
Warren Haag-Yes
Mike Peachey-Y
Randy Russom-Ye
Chuck Fellows noted his dissenting vote was simply because he didn't want the meeting
to continue all night and would like it to be concluded in an appropriate amount of time.
6.d. STAFF PROJECT 13-004; APPLICANT -CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE;
REPRESENTATIVE -GEOFF ENGLISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR;
LOCATION LA CANADA, TRACT 1998
Staff Contact: Aileen Nygaard
Assistant Planner Aileen Nygaard provided the staff report for the project.
Public Works Director Geoff English spoke in support of the project.
Cory Templeton, Garing Taylor and Associates, was on hand to answer questions about
the project.
Item 8.i. - Page 24
ARC MINUTES
DECEMBER 2, 2013
PAGE6
Committee members asked questions regarding the concrete driveway for truck
stability, architectural details of the proposed structure, and whether real or fake cedar
was being proposed.
Committee members commented that the Highlands Association should be shown the
proposal, that real cedar would be great, that the neighbors would be the biggest critics
to the structure. The committee was divided on the use of stone and split-face block on
the structure.
Tom Goss made a motion, seconded by Mike Peachey, to recommend to the City
Council approval of the project with the following conditions:
1. Any signage on the building be in keeping with the building's character and not
vinyl;
2. The cedar siding and doors be real cedar. If real cedar is not an option, an
alternate proposal return to the ARC for review;
3. The stone fa9ade be removed in favor of a solid CMU or stucco wall; and
4. If river rock is selected to be used, the details ofthe rock return to the ARC for
review.
The motion carried on a 3-2 voice vote:
Tom Goss -Yes
Chuck Fellows-No
Warren Haag-Yes
Mike Peachey -Yes
Randy Russom -No
6.e. CONDITIONAL E PERMIT 12-004; APPLICANT -ARROYO GRANDE
PUBLIC ART COM TTEE; REPRESENTATIVE-BOB QUERY; LOCATION
303 E. BRANCH STR T
Staff Contact: Matt Downing
Mike Peachey recused himself from t item due to a conflict of interest.
Assistant Planner Matt Downing provide the staff report for the project stating that
there is one proposal to modify the landsca ·ng in hopes to attract a mural on the east
elevation of the old JJ's Building and a sec d proposal for a split rail fence to be
installed along Mason Street.
Bob Query, Arroyo Grande Public Art Committee, pro ·ded support of the project.
Committee members asked questions regarding whicH tree was proposed to be
modified and if a timeline for the art was already in place.
Item 8.i. - Page 25
ARC MINUTES
MAY 5, 2014
PAGE 3
6.c. Consideration of Capital Improvement Project 13-004; Approval of Negative
Declaration and Design Improvements for Well No. 11; Location -La
Canada near Rosemary Court.
Staff Contact: Aileen Nygaard
Associate Planner Aileen Nygaard provided the staff report for the project.
The Committee asked to see the exhibit that the Committee had previously reviewed for
comparison, what size oak tree would be planted, and what color the wood accents
would be.
Neighbors Don Dirske from Asilo Street and Suzanne Brennan from 652 Rosemary
Court were present and made comments. Mr. Dirske expressed that he did not want the
facility design to look like a commercial storage shed and Ms. Brennan did not want the
building to look like a park restroom. She did, however, prefer a simple design such as a
single color split-face block. Both neighbors were concerned that the oak trees are slow
growers and would not adequately screen the building from view. Ms. Brennan also
expressed concerns regarding potential noise and traffic generated by the project.
The Committee discussed design alternatives and showed preference for a design
solution that would 'disappear' into the background. Uniform material use in one color
was thought to be preferable to provide a simple design solution. Colors mimicking the
natural grays of the oak tree trunks were discussed, as well as brown tones. More
landscape screening was discussed, however, limited easement area prohibits direct
screening from the street. Temporary fast growing trees were suggested as an
intermediate screening solution to the slower growing native oak trees. New vegetation
out of character with the native riparian habitat could provide a noticeable contrast and
attract attention instead of blending in.
Warren Haag made a motion, seconded by Michael Peachey, to recommend the City
Council approve the project design with the following modifications:
1) The building shall be constructed of split-face block using one color with
darker gray/ brown tones.
2) The wood doors shall be insulated for sound attenuation and should be darker
in color.
3) The landscape plan shall include faster growing species compatible with the
Riparian habitat that will provide temporary screening while oak trees are
established. The Tree Guild shall assist with the selection of appropriate
temporary trees.
The motion carried on a 4-0 voice vote.
Item 8.i. - Page 26
Aileen Nygaard
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
don .....:..-----L..'-'~,-u ...... , ...... J
Saturday, March 29, 2014 6:50 PM
Aileen Nygaard
Kristen Barneich
well 11 enclosure (staff project 13-004)
~-----------
ATTACHMENT 4
The view presented in the public draft may not show the building at it's best , so my comment
is that I hope for an attractive construction complimentary to the Highlands.
The view portrayed looks like an rather unattractive yard shed. This is a prominent location
adjacent to an entry drive that we all will view multiple times a day.
Don Dirkse--637 Asilo--474.1318
1
Item 8.i. - Page 27
It
e
m
8
.
i
.
-
P
a
g
e
2
8
It
e
m
8
.
i
.
-
P
a
g
e
2
9
It
e
m
8
.
i
.
-
P
a
g
e
3
0