Loading...
PC 08.a. MER CUP Branch Street HotelMEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; CONSTRUCTION OF A 51-ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL; LOCATION - 325 EAST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT -NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE-STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Lot Merger 15-004 and Conditional Use Permit 15-007. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Chapter 3.24 outlines the City's ability to collect Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), equal to ten percent (10%) of the rent charged for the room. Based upon average TOT collected per room for the City's existing hotels provided by the Administrative Services Department, it is anticipated that the proposed project will generate approximately $150,000 to $175,000 in revenue for the City annually. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 3.46 allows for collection of an additional two percent (2%) tax for the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (AGTBID), the revenue of which is to be used for the promotion of the AGTBID and the lodging industry. Under the same assumptions as above, the proposed project would generate approximately $30,000 for the AGTBID annually. Businesses in the Village area and the City as a whole are anticipated to see increased sales associated with additional visitors staying in the City. This item is related to the City's Economic Development efforts, which are directly related to the Critical Needs Action Plan established by the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE2 BACKGROUND: Location The property located at 325 East Branch Street is vacant, bordered by the Mason Bar building to the southwest and Tally Ho Creek to the northeast, with frontage that extends from East Branch Street to Le Point Street. The property is currently entitled with a conditional use permit for a new market up to 10,000 square-feet. Staff Advisory Committee The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) reviewed the proposed project on September 9, 2015. At that time, the SAC discussed various aspects of the project, including existing utility infrastructure on-site, water demand and conservation, opportunities for additional Blue Watch facilities, and emergency access. The SAC was in support of the project and developed conditions of approval for the development. Historical Resources Committee The Historical Resources Committee (HRC) reviewed the proposed project on September 18, 2015 (Attachment 1 ). Members of the HRC discussed the historic value of having a hotel in the Village and supporting heritage tourism, the design of the structure, and compliance with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the D- 2.4 Historic Character Overlay District (the "Guidelines"). The HRC was in support of the boutique hotel in the Village. The HRC also made recommendations regarding PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE3 the structure's design, including wood shutters, long, narrow windows, and transom windows above the front entrance doors to ensure the structure remains in conformance with the Guidelines. These recommendations have been included in the prepared Resolution. Architectural Review Committee The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the proposed project on September 21, 2015 (Attachment 2). Members of the ARC discussed the project's fit, both on-site and in the Village, options for the block base, the project's compliance with the Guidelines, and architectural details. The ARC was in support of the project and final review of several items prior to issuance of a building permit, including roof venting, structure base material and architectural features in the middle of the building. A condition of approval requiring this review has been included in the prepared Resolution. Traffic Commission The Traffic Commission considered the project's traffic impact study and impacts to traffic and parking on November 16, 2015 (Attachment 3). The Traffic Commission was in support of the traffic impact study, commenting that it likely does not account for enough trip reductions based on proximity of services within walking distance to the proposed project, and was in support of the project as a whole. The Traffic Commission further recommended the applicant increase parking if additional area on the site can be identified. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Project Description The proposed project encompasses approximately 1.86 acres, generally bordered by the Mason Bar building and Tally Ho Creek, with frontage that extends from East Branch Street to Le Point Street. The property consists of six (6) underlying lots that are proposed to be merged. The property will be developed with an approximately 27,730 square-foot, fifty-one (51) room boutique hotel in two-stories with associated site and public improvements, including parking lot, outdoor pool and spa area, landscaping, and creek path connecting East Branch Street to Le Point Street. Boutique Hotel The AGMC defines a hotel as a structure or group of attached or detached structures containing completely furnished individual guest rooms or suites occupied on a transient basis for compensation. While the AGMC does not define what constitutes a "boutique hotel", it is generally a small hotel with between ten (10) and 100 rooms in unique settings with upscale accommodations 1 . The proposed project, being fifty- 1 Boutique hotel. (2015, November 5). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:53, November 18, 2015, from !JllilJfJ.1~.YYlli~Q@Qa;l&J_~~llJQM.SE!~.!!ill!!Lltlllli~2lfilQ::.!;~ill~ PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE4 one (51) rooms and located in the Historic Village, meets this definition of boutique hotel. General Plan The General Plan designates the subject property for Village Core land uses. Development of the boutique hotel is consistent with Object LU6 of the General Plan Land Use Element, which states: LU6: The historic Village Core (VC) area shall be sustained, enhanced and expanded as the symbolic, functional and unique business center of the City, with diverse mixed uses emphasizing pedestrian-oriented activities and providing for the needs of residents and tourists. The proposed project is also consistent with Policies ED6-3 and ED6-1.8 of the Economic Development Element as follows: ED6-3: Capitalize on development opportunities to increase lodging facilities. ED6-1.8: Work with developers, landowners, and others to site and design appropriate hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and country inns. Zoning The project site is bisected east to west by two zoning districts, Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed-Use (VMU). The front portion of the project site (facing East Branch Street) is within the VCD zoning district and the rear portion of the project site (facing Le Point Street) is within the VMU zoning district. Both zoning districts allow lodging uses and both are covered by the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District. The development standards of the VCD district, the VMU district, and the proposed project are identified in the following table: Table 1: Site Development Standards for the VCD/VMU Zoning Districts Development VCD Zoning VMU Zoning CUP 15-007 Notes Standards District District Maximum Density 15 dwelling 15 dwelling None Not -Mixed Use units/acre units/acre applicable Projects Minimum Lot Size 2,500 square-5,000 square-81,022 feet feet square-feet Minimum Lot 25 feet 40 feet 200+ feet Width Front Yard 0-15 feet 0-15 feet 65 feet Previously Setback approved at 109' PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 5 Rear Yard 0-15 feet 0-15 feet 100 feet Setback Side Yard 0 feet 0 feet 25' feet Setback Street Side Yard 0-15 feet 0-15 feet None Not Setback applicable Building Size 30 feet or 3 30 feet or 3 33' 4" feet Limits stories (36' stories (36' 27,728 max with max with square-feet discretionary discretionary approval) approval) 20 ,000 square-10,000 square- feet max feet max Site Coverage 100% site 70% site 15% site and Floor Area coverage coverage coverage Ratio Floor Area Floor Area Floor Area Ratio:2 Ratio: 1 Ratio: 0.34 Off-Street Parking 1 space/room plus 2 spaces for 65 manager suite 53 required As indicated above, the maximum building size for the VCD and VMU zoning districts are 20,000 square-feet and 10,000 square-feet respectively. These maximum building sizes are implemented in the VCD for minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet and floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 and in the VMU for minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and FAR of 1.0. The intent is to ensure sites are compatible in scale and pedestrian orientation of the Village and do not overpower small commercial sites. In conformance with AGMC Subsection 16.36.020.L.2, which requires the project to comply with applicable provisions of AGMC Section 16.48.065, adjustments to the property development standards are allowed when it can be found that site-specific property development standards are needed to make the project consistent with the intent of the AGMC regulations. Merging the existing lots will result in a total project site square footage of approximately 81,000 square feet and an FAR of 0.34, which is in compliance with the intent of the regulations of the AGMC. For this reason, it is recommended that these size limitations be combined for a maximum building size of 30,000 square-feet due to the dual zoning of the property, the exceptionally large size of the property, and the purpose of the regulations to ensure large structures do not overpower small commercial sites. Limiting the proposed hotel to 20,000 square- feet would result in an FAR of 0.24 and would be an underutilization of a prime downtown commercial site. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15· 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE6 Parking and Circulation Parking for hotels and motels is required at one (1) space per room and two (2) additional spaces for the manager unit. The proposed parking lot contains a total of sixty-five (65) off-street parking spaces including the nine (9) off-street parking spaces previously constructed as part of frontage improvements for the entitled market. The proposed parking will exceed the minimum requirements of fifty-three (53) spaces and leaves twelve (12) spaces available for other house staff during the day and for sharing with the adjacent property. The parking lot has been designed to accommodate internal circulation between the proposed project and the separate yet adjacent property. Turning radii within the parking lot will accommodate emergency vehicles and trash trucks and the Five Cities Fire Authority has supported the proposed site plan. Conditions of approval for the project include the requirement for construction documents to maintain the truck turning ability. Traffic The applicant provided a traffic impact study (TIS) with the proposed project (see Attachment E of Attachment 6). The TIS includes trip generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation factors. The project is anticipated to generate: • 432 daily trips; • 32 AM peak hour trips; and • 34 PM peak hour trips. For comparison, the entitled market project was anticipated to generate the following trips beyond the proposed project: • 1,990 daily trips; • 169 AM peak hour trips; and • 159 PM peak hour trips. Of the six (6) intersections studied all but one (1) intersection currently operate at a level-of-service (LOS) "C" or better, while the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection currently operates at LOS "F". This LOS does not meet operational performance policy goals. However, during the 2001 update of the General Plan, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted that accepted that those land uses prescribed by the General Plan would have unavoidable significant impacts to the Village circulation system but that the opportunities for new employment and increased revenue had a positive impact to the fiscal health of the City that outweighed the negative impacts. Based on this statement, the proposed project will add to the congestion at the identified intersection; however, payment of Traffic Impact Fees and mitigation fees will assist the City in implementing a solution to the congestion at this intersection while also contributing to the City's fiscal health. Additionally, based on the number of trips being generated from the proposed project compared to the entitled market project, the proposed project will result in a PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE 7 significantly reduced impact than the entitled market project. Peak use times for the proposed project is weekends, summers, and during the holiday season, when school is typically not in session. The Traffic Commission reviewed the trip generation and impacts associated with the proposed project and remained in support of the development. Architecture The hotel is designed to be Monterey Colonial (Attachment 4), with white composite lap siding, smooth steel troweled stucco accents, dark composite shingles resembling wood shake, wood shutters and railings, and wrought iron accents. The base of the building facing East Branch Street will be constructed out of stone similar to stone used in the Paulding Wall. The base of the building facing the creek will be constructed out of stained, board formed concrete. The materials proposed are consistent with the Guidelines (Attachment 5), as recommended by the HRC and ARC. In response to public comment regarding the building's mass and scale, the applicant provided the additional elevation from East Branch Street and building height comparisons included in Attachment 4. The height and massing of the building is lessened due to the building being set back from the street approximately seventy-five feet (75') as a result of the floodplain covering that portion of the project site and the creek vegetation area. Final architectural details are required to return to the ARC for approval prior to building permit issuance. Creek Path The project includes a pedestrian path adjacent to Tally Ho Creek, connecting East Branch Street to Le Point Street. The first phase of the path adjacent to East Branch Street was previously installed with the street front improvements for the market project. Approval of the project and recordation of the lot merger will finalize the previously recorded floating easements for pedestrian access through the site and construction of the path will be completed. Sign age A separate future application for new signage will be required if the proposed project is approved and constructed. Creek Setback I Drainage The proposed project is set an average of 35' from the Tally Ho Creek bank. Municipal Code Section 16.44.050.C.1.a.i allows for an average setback of 35' provided that no setback is less than 25' and that the proposed setback is supported by a biological study. The proposed setback averages 42.2', and is a minimum of 27'. A biological study was prepared for the site that supported deviations to the creek setback based on riparian mitigation plantings that will occur with the proposed project (see Attachment A of Attachment 6). PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGES The project is required to comply with the City's Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, which require the site to retain the 95th percentile of a 24-hour storm event for project adding more than 15,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. Proposed grading and project flood risk was evaluated by the applicant's Civil Engineer (see Attachment D of Attachment 6). The proposed project will meet regulatory standards and increase flood protection in the area. Water Use The issue of water is analyzed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based on this analysis, sufficient water supplies are available for the project and water related impacts are less than significant. This conclusion was based upon an analysis of the project's water use (see Attachment F of Attachment 6) and the 2012 Water System Master Plan. Implementation of several methods of water saving for the project's water use report will help to reduce water use below that anticipated by the Water System Master Plan and the water consumption anticipated for the entitled market. These methods of water saving include: • Ultra low-flow indoor fixtures; • High-efficiency irrigation and drought-tolerant species; and • High-efficiency ozone washing machines. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the Planning Commission's consideration: • Adopt the attached Resolution, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Lot Merger 15-004 and Conditional Use Permit 15-007; • Modify and adopt the attached Resolution, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Lot Merger 15-004 and Conditional Use Permit 15- 007; • Modify and adopt the attached Resolution, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Lot Merger 15-004 and Conditional Use Permit 15- 007, with a maximum building size of 20,000 square feet; • Do not adopt the attached Resolution, provide specific findings and direct staff to return with a Resolution to deny approval of the project; or • Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: The proposed project would allow development of a lodging opportunity in the City otherwise lost to adjacent cities that will generate significant TOT and will help stimulate the local economy by providing an overnight accommodation option within walking distance to a significant revenue generating area of the City. The proposed project is an infill project that effectively utilizes land, and contributes to and diversifies the Village downtown building landscape. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 PAGE9 DISADVANTAGES: Approval of the proposed project impacts an existing intersection deficiency at East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street. However, payment of Traffic Impact Fees will assist the City in implementing a solution to the congestion at this intersection The revenue generated from the proposed use would aid the City in maintaining services such as street maintenance, fire protection and police services throughout the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Procedures for the Implementation of CEQA, staff has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project (Attachment 6). PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: A 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, November 20, 2015. The agenda and staff report was posted at City Hall and on the City's website on November 25, 2015. Staff has received a number of comments from the public on the proposed project both in support and opposition of the project (Attachment 7). Attachments: 1. DRAFT minutes of the September 18, 2015 Historical Resources Committee meeting 2. Minutes of the September 21, 2015 Architectural Review Committee meeting 3. DRAFT minutes of the November 16, 2015 Traffic Commission meeting 4. Artist renderings of the proposed structure 5. Excerpts from the Design Guidelines and Standards for the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District 6. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 7. Public comments received on the project 8. Project plans RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING LOT MERGER 15-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007; LOCATED AT 325 EAST BRANCl-I STREET; APPLIED FOR BY NKT COMMERCIAL WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Lot Merger 15-004 and Conditional Use Permit 15-007 to merge six (6) lots for the development of a fifty-one (51) room boutique hotel and associated improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the 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 has determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the project is adequate; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on December 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Lot Merger Findings 1. Merged lots should comply where feasible with the minimum lot size, lot width, and lot depth requirements of the zoning district in which it is located; The proposed Lot Merger will merge six (6) lots into one (1) and the new lot will conform to the VCD and VMU zoning district development standards for lot size, lot width, and lot depth. 2. Adequate access and placement of easements shall be provided; Access to the merged parcel is available from East Branch Street. 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 development for a hotel is permitted within the VCD and VMU zoning districts and is consistent with the provisions of General Plan RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 policies LU6, ED6-3, and ED6-1.8 regarding development of lodging facilities within the City. 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 a hotel serves as a visitor serving use in one of the economic centers of the City, will comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, and therefore will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be located. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. The site is 1.86 acres of vacant land, adjacent to Tally Ho Creek, and meets the development standards of the VCD and VMU zoning districts, which makes it suitable for the fifty-one (51) room boutique hotel and associated improvements proposed. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety. The provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities were examined during development of the Initial Study and subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and it was determined that adequate public services will be available for the proposed project and will not result in substantially adverse impacts. 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 will it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as it will comply with all applicable codes and standards of the Municipal Code and in accordance with conditions of approval specifically developed for the project. 6. Site-specific property development standards are needed to make the project consistent with the intent of these regulations. A maximum building size of 30, 000 square feet on a 1. 86 acre site continues to ensure that the development is compatible in scale and pedestrian orientation of the Village, does not overpower small commercial sites, and does not result in the underutilization of a prime RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 downtown commercial site. 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 Lot Merger 15-004 and Conditional Use Permit 15-007. 2. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for public review. A copy of the Mitigated 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 adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration as shown in Exhibit "B", on file in the Community Development Department and approves Lot Merger 15-004 and Conditional Use Permit 15-007 as shown in Exhibit "C", 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: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 1st day of December, 2015. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE4 ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGER, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: TERESA MCCLISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LAN GEORGE CHAIR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LOT MERGER 15-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 325 EAST BRANCH STREET This approval authorizes the development a fifty-one (51) room boutique hotel on 1.86 acres of vacant land in the Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed-Use zoning districts. PLANNING DIVISON CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 15-007 and Lot Merger 15-004. 3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 20, 2015 and marked Exhibit "B". 4. 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. 5. Development shall conform to the Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed-Use (VMU) zoning district standards except as otherwise approved. 6. All conditions of approval for the project shall be included in construction drawings. 7. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.60 of the Development Code. 8. 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". RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 9. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans including those specifically modified by these conditions. 10. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.56, "Parking and Loading Requirements". All parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet. 11. Final design and location of the trash enclosure(s) shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee and approved by the Community Development Director. 12. 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 and 5 PM Monday through Friday. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday. 13. 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). 14. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water and energy usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow showerheads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 15. 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 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 plants. v. Linear planters shall be provided in parking areas. vi. No turf shall be utilized. 16. 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. 17. All new electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building(s). 18. All Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, adjacent to a fire access roadway, away from the public right-of-way, incorporated into the design of the site, and screened to the maximum extent feasible. 19. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be located directly adjacent to or within the respective building to which they serve. 20. 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. 21. 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. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 22. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.64 "Dedications, Fees and Reservations." 23. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.68 "Improvements". 24. All pedestrian crossings shall be delineated with a decorative treatment, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 25. Decorative light standards, consistent with the Village, shall be used in the parking lot, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 26. Education signage shall be installed along the pedestrian path adjacent to Tally Ho Creek, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 27. The applicant shall maintain all drainage basins in a functional manner and all landscaped areas. The applicant shall repair any damage to the creek bank. 28. Prior to recording the lot merger, the applicant shall provide a public access easement for the pedestrian trail in a form acceptable to the Director of Community Development. 29. The westernmost driveway on the project frontage shall restrict movements to right-in, right-out only as currently designed. 30. The property owner shall install and maintain degradable plastic mitt dispensers on both ends of the pedestrian path. 31. Maximum building size shall not exceed 30,000 square feet. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS: BUILDING CODES 32. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of all California Building and Fire Codes, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. DISABLED ACCESS 33. Provide complete compliance with State and Federal disabled access requirements. FIRE LANES 34. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. 35. Prior to occupancy, all fire lanes must be posted and enforced, per Police Department and Fire Department guidelines. FIRE FLOW /FIRE HYDRANTS 36. Project shall have a fire flow based on the California Fire Code appendix Ill-A. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 37. Prior to combustible materials being placed on site, fire hydrants shall be installed & operational, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards. FIRE SPRINKLERS 38. Prior to Occupancy, all buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines. 39. Provide Fire Department approved access & sprinkler-system per National Fire Protection Association Standards. SECURITY KEY BOX 40. The applicant must provide an approved "security key vault," per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code. ABANDONMENT I NON-CONFORMING 41. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. FLOODPROOFED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 42. Provide written certification that the envelope of the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water required under 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR 60.3 (c)(3)). 43. Provide a comprehensive Maintenance Plan for the entire structure to include but not limited to: a. Exterior envelope of structure. b. All penetrations to the exterior of the structure. c. All shields, gates, barriers, or components, designed to provide floodproofing protection to the structure. d. All seals or gaskets for shields, gates, barriers, or components. e. Location of all shields, gates, barriers, and components as well as all associated hardware, and any materials or specialized tools necessary to seal the structure. 44. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due (for your information, the "Procedure for Protesting Fees, Dedications, Reservations or Exactions" is provided below). 45. Water Meter, service main, distribution, and availability fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE10 46. Water neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 47. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 48. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 49. Sewer hook-up & facility Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 50. Building Permit fees, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 51. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) fee and State Green Building fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with State mandate. 52. Park Development fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 53. Park Improvements fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 54. Community Centers fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 55. Fire Protection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 56. Police Facilities fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 57. Reimburse the City for all Land Survey Professional Service needs to process project prior to issuance of Building Permit PROCEDURE FOR PROTESTING FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR EXACTIONS: (A) Any party may protest the imposition of any fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project, for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project by meeting both of the following requirements: RESOLUTION NO. PAGE11 (1) Tendering any required payment in full or providing satisfactory evidence of arrangements to pay the fee when due or ensure performance of the conditions necessary to meet the requirements of the imposition. (2) Serving written notice on the City Council, which notice shall contain all of the following information: (a) A statement that the required payment is tendered or will be tendered when due, or that any conditions which have been imposed are provided for or satisfied, under protest. (b) A statement informing the City Council of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. (8) A protest filed pursuant to subdivision (A) shall be filed at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the development or within 90 days after the date of the imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions to be imposed on a development project. (C) Any party who files a protest pursuant to subdivision (A) may file an action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the imposition of the fees, dedications reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project by a local agency within 180 days after the delivery of the notice. (D) Approval or conditional approval of a development occurs, for the purposes of this section, when the tentative map, tentative parcel map, or parcel map is approved or conditionally approved or when the parcel map is recorded if a tentative map or tentative parcel map is not required. (E) The imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions occurs, for the purposes of this section, when they are imposed or levied on a specific development. ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, AND ANNUAL STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 57. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City a: a. Stormwater Control Plan that clearly provides engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls. b. Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff RESOLUTION NO. PAGE12 Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls. c. Annual Maintenance Notification indicating that all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls have been 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). 58. Prior to any Permit -Stormwater Control Plan. The Stormwater Control Plan must include, at minimum: Contents a. Project information including project name; application number; location; parcel numbers; applicant contact information; land use information; site area; existing, new, and replaced impervious area, and applicable PCR requirements and exceptions. b. Narrative analysis or description of site features and conditions, and opportunities and constraints for stormwater control. c. Narrative description of site design characteristics that protect natural resources including endangered species habitat, protected vegetation, and archaeological resources, and preserve natural drainage features, minimize imperviousness, and disperse runoff from impervious areas. d. Tabulation of proposed pervious and impervious DMAs, showing self- treating areas, self-retaining areas, areas draining to self-retaining areas, and areas tributary to each LID facility. e. Proposed sizes, including supporting calculations, for each LID facility. f. Narrative description of each OMA and explanation of how runoff is routed from each impervious OMA to a self-retaining OMA or LID facility. g. Description of site activities and potential sources of pollutants. h. Table of pollutant sources identified from the list in Appendix A and for each source, the source control measure(s) used to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. i. Description of signage for bioretention facilities. j. General maintenance requirements for bioretention facilities and site design features. k. Means by which facility maintenance will be financed and implemented in perpetuity. I. Statement accepting responsibility for interim operation & maintenance of facilities. Exhibits a. Existing natural hydrologic features (depressions, watercourses, relatively undisturbed areas) and significant natural resources. b. Proposed design features and surface treatments used to minimize imperviousness and reduce runoff. c. Existing and proposed site drainage network and connections to drainage off-site. d. Entire site divided into separate Drainage Management Areas (DMAs). RESOLUTION NO. PAGE13 Each OMA has a unique identifier and is characterized as self-retaining (zero-discharge), self-treating, or draining to a LID facility. e. Proposed locations and footprints of LID facilities. f. Potential pollutant source areas, including loading docks, food service areas, refuse areas, outdoor processes and storage, vehicle cleaning, repair or maintenance, fuel dispensing, equipment washing, etc. 59. Prior to Final Approval -Operations and Maintenance Plan. The Operations and Maintenance Plan must include, at minimum: a. Stormwater Control Measures report number b. A site map identifying all Stormwater Control Measures requiring Operations and Maintenance practices to function as designed. c. Operations and Maintenance Procedures for each structural stormwater control measure including, but not limited to, Low Impact Design facilities, retention and detention basins, and manufactured or propriety devices operations and maintenance. d. Short-and long-term maintenance requirements, recommended frequency of maintenance, and estimated cost for maintenance. 60. Prior to Occupancy -Maintenance Agreement. The Applicant shall provide a signed statement accepting responsibility for the Operations and Maintenance of the installed Storm Water Control Measures. The Applicant shall include written conditions in the sales, lease agreements, deed, CCRs, HOA or any other legally enforceable mechanism that require the assumed responsibility for the Operations and Maintenance of Stormwater Control Facilities. Additionally, the signed statement shall include the following information: a. Stormwater Control Measures Report Number b. The location and address of Storm Water Control Facilities c. Completion dates of the following milestones i. Construction ii. Field verification of Stormwater Control Facilities iii. Final Project approval/occupancy d. Party responsible for O&M e. Source of funding for O&M f. Statement indicating the Storm Water Control Facilities are Maintained as required in the Operations and Maintenance Plan and facilities continues to function as designed or have been repaired or replaced g. Statement describing any vector or nuisance problems. 61. Annual -Maintenance Notification. The Owner/Applicant shall provide a signed statement notifying the City of all maintenance of the installed Storm Water Control Measures. Additionally, the signed statement shall include the following information: a. Stormwater Control Measures Report Number b. The location and address of Storm Water Control Facilities RESOLUTION NO. PAGE14 c. Completion date of the maintenance activities d. Party responsible for O&M e. Source of funding for O&M f. Statement indicating the Storm Water Control Facilities are Maintained as required in the Operations and Maintenance Plan and facilities continues to function as designed or have been repaired or replaced g. Statement describing any vector or nuisance problems. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 62. The developer shall be responsible during construction for cleaning City streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks of dirt tracked from the project site. The flushing of dirt or debris to storm drain or sanitary sewer facilities shall not be permitted. The cleaning shall be done after each day's work or as directed by the Public Works Director. 63. Perform construction activities during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 7 A.M. to 5 P.M.) for noise and inspection purposes. The developer or contractor shall refrain from performing any work other than site maintenance outside of these hours, unless an emergency arises or approved by the Community Development Director. The City may hold the developer or contractor responsible for any expenses incurred by the City due to work outside of these hours. 64. Trash enclosure area(s) shall have a roof structure (grease trap) to reduce stormwater pollution runoff. 65. 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. 66. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Drawings and Specifications. 67. Submit three (3) full-size paper copies and one (1) full-size mylar copy of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction. 68. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Community Development Director. One (1) set of mylar prints and an electronic version on CD in AutoCAD format shall be required. 69. Provide a Licensed Land Surveyor or a Registered Civil Engineer to tie-out survey monuments or vertical control bench marks within 24 inches of work. Should any existing survey monument be disturbed or destroyed during construction, it must RESOLUTION NO. PAGE15 be reset at the previous location. Should any existing bench mark be disturbed or destroyed during construction, a new one must be set at a nearby, but different, location than the existing, as determined by the City Engineer. For monuments, a Corner Record must be filed with the County and a copy delivered to the City Engineer. For bench marks, documentation of the bench mark and how it was reset must be delivered to the City Engineer prior the project acceptance or sign off of the Encroachment Permit. 70. Provide new vertical control survey bench mark, per City Standard, as directed by City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 71. Improvement plans (including the following) shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of California and approved by the Public Works or Community Development Department: a. Grading, drainage and erosion control, b. Street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk, c. Public utilities, d. Water and sewer, e. Landscaping and irrigation, f. Other improvements as required by the Community Development Director. (NOTE: All plan sheets must include City standard title blocks). g. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo unit cost. 72. The site plan shall include the following: a. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. b. The location, quantity and size of all existing and proposed sewer laterals. c. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. d. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property. e. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas. f. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. 73. Improvement plans shall include plan and profile of existing and proposed retaining walls (if applicable). 7 4. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community Development Director for walls not constructed per City standards. "15. Landscape and irrigation plans are required within the public right-of-way, and shall be approved by the Public Works Director. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE16 76. Planter at (north) end of center aisle should be lengthened to protect end parking spaces. 77. Demonstrate parking lot meets safe delivery/trash/emergency truck turning radii access throughout site. 78. Relocation of trash enclosure, if necessary, shall be located to an area avoiding impairment to it or contamination from it during flooding. 79. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 80. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right-of-way (City or Caltrans). WATER 81. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public Works Director must grant permission to dead end water mains. 82. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines to the development. 83. Construction water is available at the corporate yard. The City of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters. 84. Each parcel shall have separate water meters. Duplex service lines shall be used if feasible. 85. Provide automatic fire sprinkler, a fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water line and meter. 86. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Public Works Director. 87. If existing water meter box is not going to be used, remove and construct new sidewalk on East Branch Street per the requirements of the Director of the Public Works. 88. The applicant shall complete measures to neutralize the estimated increase in water demand created by the project by either: a. Implement an individual water program consisting of retrofitting existing high-flow plumbing fixtures with low flow devices. The calculations shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The RESOLUTION NO. PAGE17 proposed individual water program shall be submitted to the City Council for approval prior to implementation; OR, b. The applicant may pay an in lieu fee in the amount to be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. 89. Fire department connection to be located within 50 feet of any public fire hydrant. 90. A fire hydrant may be required by the fire department. SEWER 91. The applicant shall extend the sewer main to adequately serve the project across the property frontage. All new sewer mains shall be a minimum diameter of 8". 92. All sewer laterals within the public right of way must have a minimum slope of 2%. 93. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with City standards. 94. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be properly abandoned and capped at the main per the requirements of the Public Works Director. 95. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the development's impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance. 96. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District prior to relocation of any District facilities. 97. Show the correct orientation and layout of the existing sanitary sewer lateral to be abandoned. 98. The developer shall install a new sewer manhole to reroute existing flow towards the project site into the 18" trunk main on East Branch Street. PUBLIC UTILITIES 99. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050: All projects that involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required to place service connections underground -existing and proposed utilities. 100. Underground improvements shall be installed prior to street paving. 101. Public Improvement plans/Final Map/Parcel Map 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. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE18 102. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all public utilities shall be operational. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 103. 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 any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal. 104. All street repairs shall be constructed to City standards. 105. All trenching in City streets shall utilize saw cutting. Any over cuts shall be cleaned and filled with epoxy. 106. Street structural sections shall be determined by an R-Value soil test, but shall not be less than the structural section of the existing pavement. The existing asphalt pavement in East Branch Street is 18 inches thick. 107. Overlay, slurry seal, or fog seal any roads dedicated to the City prior to acceptance by the City shall be required as directed by the Public Works Director. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK 108. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk as directed by the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. This includes project frontage on Le Point Street and exposed aggregate sidewalk on East Branch Street to easternmost property boundary. 109. 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. 110. Color any such new facilities as directed by the Community Development Director. 111. Utilize saw cuts for all repairs made in curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 112. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary or verify that existing facilities are compliant with State and City Standards. 113. The existing driveway approach shall be modified to new standards with ADA accessible walkway behind driveway apron, in accordance with Title 24 of the California Building Code, Chapter 11. 114. Construct new driveway approach in accordance with Title 24 of the California RESOLUTION NO. PAGE19 Building Code, Chapter 11. 115. Install tree wells for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 116. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit two (2) copies of the final project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) requirements. 117. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance. 118. All drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm flow. 119. 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. 120. The applicant shall dedicate a pedestrian access easement(s) for the ADA sidewalk extension. 121. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil tests. Infiltration test shall include a minimum of 2 borings 15 feet below the finished basin floor. Additional borings or tests may be required if the analysis or soil conditions are inconclusive. 122. No grading, fill or other site improvements affecting the flow of Tally Ho Creek is allowed within the Floodway Boundary. 123. Site improvements shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 16.44.050(C)-General Provisions for Creek Protection. 124. The floor of the trash enclosure shall slope to the back of the enclosure so as not to allow storm water to be released to the parking lot and shall be provided with a drain inlet connected to the grease interceptor or to a landscape area for filtration. 125. All drainage facilities shall be in accordance with the Drainage Master Plan and the "Flood Plain Analysis and Calculations of Tally Ho Creek at Branch Street" prepared by North Coast Engineering, dated June, 2007. 126. Storm drain inlets, both public and private, will be required to be stenciled with the warning: "Drains to Creek" or other appropriate advice as directed by the City. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 20 127. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil tests. Infiltration tests shall include a minimum of 2 borings 15 feet below the finished basin floor. Additional borings or tests may be required if the analysis or soil conditions are inconclusive. 128. Because the Applicant is proposing on building within the 100-year floodplain, the project must comply with the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance (Municipal Code 16.44.050). 129. The applicant shall submit an engineering study regarding flooding related to the project site as directed by the Community Development Director. Any portions of the site subject to flooding from a 100-year storm shall be shown on the site plan, and shall be noted as a building restriction. 130. The Applicant is proposing on filling and constructing a parking lot within the Floodway of Tally Ho Creek. The engineering study shall include to what extent the proposed improvements affect the Base Flood Elevation and how this is to be mitigated in accordance with the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance (Municipal Code 16.44.050). 131. According to the FIRM, the entire site is in Zone AE and is in a designated Special Flood Hazard Area subject to inundation by the 1 % annual chance flood (Elevation 119.7'). Flood proofing is required to Elevation 120.7'. It is recommended that the finish floor of the building be raised out of or as high as the site allows to minimize the amount of flood protection needed. 132. The Applicant is to use the terms used from the FIRM and FBFM when identifying the boundaries of the Special Hazard Zone and the Floodway on both the grading and drainage plans. 133. Applicant shall file a Elevation Certificate with FEMA prior to occupancy. 134. Show all drainage easements and identify and spec all drainage facilities on the site plan and repair/upgrade any facilities as necessary as determined by the Director of Community Development. 135. Required reports include: a. Hydraulics and Hydrology -which includes analysis of pre-project vs post project conditions and 100 year flood evaluation analysis b. Stormwater Control Plan c. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS 136. All easements, abandonments, lot mergers or similar documents to be recorded as a separate document, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 21 standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing. 137. Street tree planting and maintenance easements shall be dedicated adjacent to all street right of ways. Street tree easements shall be a minimum of 10 feet beyond the right of way, except that street tree easements shall exclude the area covered by public utility easements. 138. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be reserved a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent to all street right of ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities. 139. There exists a storm drain line across the Applicant's property that serves the adjacent property to the west. Wherever the drain line exists or is rerouted, a drainage easement across the property shall be granted to the adjacent property owner. TREE PRESERVATION/TREE REMOVAL PLAN 140. 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. 141. 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. 142. All significant trees to be removed as designated by the Director of Public Works/City Arborist shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and planted on site. 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 issuance of a grading permit, all trees shall be planted or fees paid. 143. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, 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. 144. All trees on the construction site to be preserved shall be protected under the conditions of the Community Tree Ordinance (431 C.S.) which include but are not limited to: RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 22 a. No mechanical trenching within the drip line of a tree, unless approved by the Public Works 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 145. All trees to be pruned, shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Agricultural Pruning Standards. 146. Obtain an encroachment permit prior to performing any of the following: a. Performing work in the City right of way, b. Staging work in the City right of way, c. Stockpiling material in the City right of way, d. Storing equipment in the City right of way. 147. Obtain a grading permit prior to commencement of any grading operations on site. 148. Pay all required City fees at the time they are due. 149. Fees to be paid prior to plan approval: a. Map check fee for lot merger. b. Plan check for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. c. Plan check for improvement plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. d. Permit Fee for grading plans based on an approved earthwork estimate. e. Inspection fee of subdivision or public works construction plans based on an approved construction cost estimate. AGREEMENTS 150. Inspection Agreement: Prior to approval of an improvement plan, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 151. Improvement Agreement: The applicant shall enter into a improvement agreement for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The improvement agreement shall be on a form acceptable to the City. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 23 152. The Applicant proposes on encroaching with building and site improvements onto Harden Alley, currently owned in fee by the City of Arroyo Grande. The Applicant is to work out an Agreement with the City for use of the property. IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES 153. All improvement securities shall be of a form as set forth in Development Code Section 16.68.090, Improvement Securities. 154. Submit an engineer's estimate of quantities for public improvements for review by the Community Development Director. 155. Provide financial security for the following, to be based upon a construction cost estimate approved by the Community Development Director: a. Faithful Performance: 100% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements, b. Labor and Materials: 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements c. One Year Guarantee: 10% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. d. Monumentation: 100% of the estimated cost of setting survey monuments. This financial security may be waived if the developer's surveyor submits to the Community Development Director a letter assuring that all monumentation has been set. OTHER DOCUMENTATION 156. The proposed building footprint encroaches into Harden Alley. A lot merger or a City Grant of Lease Agreement may be required. 157. Tax Certificate: The applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's office indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. The applicant may be required to bond for any unpaid taxes or liens against the property. This shall be submitted prior to placing the lot merger on the City Council Agenda for approval. 158. Preliminary Title Report: A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to checking the lot merger. 159. Subdivision Guarantee: A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the Community Development Director with the final submittal of the lot merger. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 24 PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT 160. The Final lot merger or Grant of Lease Agreement shall be recorded with all pertinent conditions of approval satisfied. PRIOR TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 161. All utilities shall be operational. 162. All essential project improvements shall be constructed prior to occupancy. Non- essential improvements, guaranteed by an agreement and financial securities, may be constructed after occupancy as directed by the Community Development Director. 163. Prior to the final 10% of occupancies for the project are issued, all improvements shall be fully constructed and accepted by the City. BONDING SURETY 164. 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. 165. 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 recording of the map, unless noted otherwise. The minimum term for Improvement securities shall be equal to the term of the subdivision agreement. a. Faithful Performance, 100% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. b. Labor and Materials, 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. c. One Year Guarantee, 10% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. d. Monumentation, 100% of the estimated cost of setting survey monuments. e. Tax Certificate, In accordance with Section 9-15.130 of the Development Code, the applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector's office indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. f. Accessory Structures, the applicant shall remove or bond for removal of all accessory structures not sharing a parcel with a residence. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 25 g. Curb cuts, the applicant shall construct or bond for construction of individual curb cuts and paved driveways for parcels. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 166. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan, subject to review by and approval of the Public Works Director. 167. Prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the pedestrian trail on behalf of the City to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 168. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant to submit exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval. 169. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post handicapped parking, per Police Department requirements. 170. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary [or robbery] alarm system per Police Department guidelines, and pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee of ($94.00). Annual renewal fee is $31.00. 171. The developer shall include Village type lamp posts on both ends of the public path wired with constant 11 Ov electrical supply. The developer may use existing posts if adequate power exists. FIVE CITIES FIRE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS 172. The onsite Fire Department turnaround shall be constructed of an all weather surface. HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE CONDITIONS 173. The design of the structure shall remain simplistic. 17 4. The wood shutters shall be included in the final design. 175. The hotel shall include long, narrow windows. 176. Transom windows shall be incorporated over the front door. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 26 177. The design should maintain one context time period. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS 178. Incorporate additional details to the transitional towers between the two buildings, additional details on roof venting, and the structures base, to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Committee prior to building permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. MITIGATION MEASURES: MM 111-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non- California based vehicles. In general the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: • Shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location. • Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. MM 111-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. MM 111-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State's 5 minute idling limit. MM 111-4: The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development): • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; • Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and • Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 27 MM 111-5: The following standard mitigation measures for construction equipment shall be implemented to reduce the ROG, NOx, and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions during construction of the project: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications; • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On- Road Regulation; 111 Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; .. All on-and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Electrify equipment when feasible; • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. MM 111-6: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD's 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402): • Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. • Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible. • All dirt stockpile areas shall be sprayed daily or as needed. • Permanent dust-control measures identified in the approved revegetation/landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil-disturbing activities. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 28 • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one (1) month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD). • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved surface at the construction site. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. • Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the construction site. • Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used where feasible. • The contractor/builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity and to prevent the transport of dust off-site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) prior to the start of any construction-related activities. • All on-road hauling trucks shall be 2003 or newer to reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions. • All on-site off-road construction equipment shall be 2003 or newer or be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters (CDPF) or diesel oxidation catalysts. • A listing of all required mitigation measures shall be included on grading and building plans; and, • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. MM 111-7: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 29 requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. MM 111-8: All portable equipment (50 horsepower or greater) used during construction must be issued a permit by either the GARB or the APCD. MM 111-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: • Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal. • Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH -non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate. • Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted. • During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance. • Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. MM 111-10: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. MM 111-11: The project proponent shall coordinate with and obtain all necessary equipment and operation permits that are required by APCD. Typical equipment requiring such permits includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators; • Boilers; • Internal combustion engines; • Sterilization unit(s) using ethylene oxide and incinerator(s); and • Cogeneration facilities. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -CDD, Public Works Dept., Building Division, Engineering Division Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM 111-12: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include the establishment of a 'no idle' zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques: • Each delivery vehicle's engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 30 • The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible. • Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the 'no idle' zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. Copies of the letters shall be sent to the City Community Development Department. • Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines. • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted. • Use of alternative-fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible. • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -COD, Public Works Dept., Building Division, Engineering Division Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM IV-1: The applicant shall implement the native riparian habitat restoration plan approved by the CDFW via an Operation of Law letter issued under Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification 1600-2013-0207-R4 on June 23, 2014. MM IV-2: No variance to the 35-foot setback shall be allowed and the riparian restoration plan shall be implemented along all project areas along Tally Ho Creek as a part of project construction, unless the average building setback remains greater than or equal to 35-feet. At no time shall the building extend into the 25-foot setback. MM IV-3: The applicant shall design the bioswale/retention basin to support native seasonal wetland and upland plant species to enhance and complement the riparian habitat restoration. MM IV-4: The walking trail shall be located the furthest distance from the top of bank within the 35 foot setback area as feasible. MM IV-5: Prior to any vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall provide for a survey for nesting pond turtles to be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If an active southwestern pond turtle nest is found, then it shall be avoided with a non-disturbance buffer zone determined by a qualified biologist until the nest site is not longer used by adult and/or young turtles. MM IV-6: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed vegetation removal/enhancements, outfall structure, or other work in Tally Ho Creek. Should a permit be required, the City shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 31 been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. Issuance of a Corps permit also requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB that may also carry conditions to protect water quality and restore habitat. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than significant level. MM IV-7: Prior to any further vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the California red-legged frog in the form of a take permit/authorization or written documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the California red-legged frog or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City and/or the project applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance as described above would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to a less-than-significant level. MM IV-8: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31 ), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. MM IV-9: If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande -COD, Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM V-1: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all grading activities. The monitor shall work closely with construction crews in close proximity to earth moving RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 32 equipment in order to investigate and evaluate exposed materials immediately upon exposure and prior to disturbance. A daily log shall be maintained by the monitor to record when and where earth-moving activities take place within the project area, as well as the presence/absence of archaeological materials in the monitored matrix. In the event that prehistoric cultural materials or historic cultural materials are encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and the archaeologist allowed to quickly record, collect, and analyze any significant resources encountered. The client and the City shall be notified should resources meeting CEQA significance standards be discovered. The archaeologist shall work as quickly as possible to permit resumption of construction activities. It is preferred that location data of finds be recorded using a hand-held global positioning system receiver (GPSr). Following the field analysis work, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a final monitoring/rnitigation report that includes a description of the methods used, materials recovered, and the results of historic or prehistoric analysis of those materials. The final archaeological monitoring/mitigation report prepared by the qualified archaeologist shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior to submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A copy shall be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file. MM V-2: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the San Luis Obispo County Coroner's office shall be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered remains. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -Engineering Division; Public Works Department Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during grading activities MM Vl-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical survey report prepared for the project by GSI Soils, Inc. (July 2015). Final improvement plans submitted to the City shall be accompanied by a letter of certification from the civil engineer that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical investigation report and all applicable Codes and Ordinances. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -Engineering Division; Public Works Department Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 33 MM Vll-1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures: • Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. • Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design shall provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees. • No residential wood burning appliances. • Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees are recommended. • Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. • Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted. • Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. • Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) that are available locally if possible. • Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. • Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). • Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters. • Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®). • Utilize double-paned windows. e Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium). • Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. • Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats. • Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs. • Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting. • Provide on-site bicycle parking both short term (racks) and long term (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 34 • Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel-powered TRUs at the loading docks. • Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks I lockers to service the residential units. • Provide an on-site electrical vehicle charging station. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -CDD; Building Division; APCD Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit MM IX-1: If dewatering is necessary in areas where groundwater is encountered within the planned depth of excavation, the applicant shall obtain a permit for discharge of the extracted groundwater from the RWQCB prior to construction in areas where dewatering would be required. MM IX-2: The following water quality BMPs shall be incorporated into the project: • Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system. • Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels. • Labelir19 and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with "No Dumping -Drains to Ocean" to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. • Vehicle/Equipment Cleaning. Commercial/industrial facilities or multi-family residential developments of 50 units or greater shall either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run-on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer. • Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system. • Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. e Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas. • Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 35 containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas. • Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. • Str§:iet/Parking Lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing shall be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Wash water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser shall be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -COD; Engineering Division; Building Division Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XVl-1: The developer shall pay the project's fair share contribution to the City's Traffic Mitigation Fee Program to mitigate the project's additional impact to East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection. MM XVl-2: The developer shall pay all traffic impact fees for Street Improvements and Traffic Signals for impacts to the overall City circulation network. MM XVl-3: East Branch Street, east of Mason Street, shall be restriped so that the westbound left-turn pocket is visually separated from the center turn lane. MM XVll-1: The project shall incorporate all water consumption strategies, fixtures, and equipment identified and assumed in the Branch Street Hotel Water Use Analysis. Responsible Party: Monitoring Agency: Timing: Developer City of Arroyo Grande -COD; Engineering Division; Building Division Prior to issuance of a Building Permit INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EXHIBIT "B" (Full copy on file in the Community Development Department) Conditional Use Permit 15-007 Lot Merger 15-004 New 51 Room Boutique Hotel 325 East Branch Street November 2015 THE BRANCH STREET HOTEL QIBglORY fBQ!ECT DATA & STATISTICS ~~1~~~~~~~.{~fQRMATlQN 5fil!'J_IN_DEX n.7<Es~u:u~foe1 nn3<q<<>r~f.,...t =54 =65 LE POINT STREET HARDEN ST. OVERALL SITE PLAN Elevation from E. Branch St. EAST BRANCH STREET D ~ -5 c r:: OJ -.; 15 :r: ~ c 31 O-E 0 f-z s 0.. "' ,__ Vi _, _, <C 0: "' > 0 -c c "' t;:; "' :c VI "' _, ,__ ;:: ~ . --P1.o 1VMnl:lf!ILl.S•11Al:l 0100-~Vl (£~£) • 0100-~H\90$) UJa~··~usMie1~s•·""'-M 1ort6V:i'nds1<w•1n1u•s JUJ\SMJO)U<>Wtlfl --------- YJ '30NY1l'.:> OAOl;ll;IV .HHJJ.SHJN\>111.1 Z96t-S65(S08) l0\>!:6V)'Od$lBOSlnlN"S "'3.LS '.L.rnus VlBf\'.:llH 695 SlJ3llHJCIV ISl19f)d N3A31S 'J.S HJN\f~8 -13.LOH SNl>ldlAJOJ. -----__ , ----- n ! I z 0 l/) -z I-<( u ....J :::> CL CC >-I-CC Vl <( z zO -U ~ cc ::J 0 L.l.J w.. cc I- Q.. 0 z J.iJl-£1.l V:J 'cd~!'W ~1n1 UVS 1n;;g.!.(t.IG\~<>WHI'~ ltJ '30NVB9 OAOBH\i J..33'll1S HJNV'd8 2961-S6S(S08) 10V£G V) 'OdSl90 Slnl NVS V ·315 'B3l:!lS ~3f1'.)!H 695 SJ.J311HJWV ISl19nd N3/\3J..S 'J.S HJN\f~8 -13.LOH SNl)ldv.JOJ. N u z 0 :.2 f= ::5 ~ 0.. c::: >-f-0::: Vl <( z zO -U ~c::: ::i 0 u.J u.. c::: f- 0.. 0 z 1,---"===-l Preliminary Plant Materials List \i D Undisturbed Riparian Vegetation D ~~~~~:~~~~'c:dgc "Native Meadow" I Bioswale (irrigution rl;rnt foctor 0 35 lnw) Drought Tolerant Ornamental Landscape (irrigation plnnt factor 0.3-0.4 !ow tg __ mBr!) Xedscape Buffer I Native Slope Planting ~ -------------(Jrisfirig Slope land~cape I L _ - ---____ Jj,...l.~-----~~::;t __ BRANCH STREET Conceptual Landscape Plan Branch Street Hotel The Village of Arroyo Grande i Xeriscape Buffer I Native Slope Planting Edge Planting to top of bank ~"Native Meadow"; Bioswa!e "' w w "' u w 0 ~ ~ "' ~ 0 ~ 0 "' "' ~ Existing Riparian Canopy ' "'-Multiusepath~nnnectio toLePointitSttl'!et MATCH(J;;t=--=--~ - - - - -0 North L-1 June5,21015 r~~ I WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE COMPUANCE Conceptual Landscape Plan Branch Street Hotel The Village of Arroyo Grande Low Impact Development (LID) for Stormwater Management. Water Conservation Notes ·4 0 North L-2 June5, 21015 ll D Nlfld 311S11ill0.L)3.LIH)llli : ~ J1, ·.:.·11,, ITJ ·is 4oueJ9 · 1a10H su1~dwo1 ~. ~' Cl.. i.S"'~ '-----' .________, ....____ ~ ..__________,' •'• " ~·· 0 Ii ill 0 ~ ~ 0 Iii ~ ~ o' llW • 0 • ~ 0 llW ff!; 0 • I I I I I II D P)UJOj)//l) ';ipw>J~Oi\OJJif'·~5t.puPJg35"i'.f jPPJ<JWWO) 1::4N JOj ·+s 4JueJ9 -ia+oH SUJ>idwo1 ""'-----' ..__. .__________, .____ • ill 0 0 ~ !lit' ~ ~ 0 0 • I? • ill 0 0 ~ !lit' ~ 0 I? ~ ~ ~ 0 'fl SNOl.LVA313 l!Olll3.LX3 D PIUJO/!JP)1<1pUVJ9bi\OJJVi.~5tpurug3!irf jPPJ<IWWO) l~N JOj ·is 4oueJ9 -!OlOH su1~dwo1 ~--'-'-----' ~ .______, ...____ z \ 0 I z ~ I 0 i= z z ~ 0 UJ _, 0 "' ~ UJ ~ _, ,_ UJ :i: ... w " :i: u:l 0: _, " ,_ ,.;. UJ 0: ~i 5~ ... ~~ :r ;z ~~ "' C2 ~ ~~ .... , LL, z 0 ~ "' ..J "' "' v I z "' f u. 5~ I 2~ ( ( f rt\ I z z 0 0 ;::: ;::: z z u u 0 0 "' UJ V) V) ;::: ;::: "' "' v v ,_ t:: "' "' Vi V) ~~ V) ' -' ~ ..J ~ UJ !01-..J > ..J > I-~ 1-.;: :=t.!i :;,.§ V1 ~ Vi~ .... ,, u." N """ U"I I WOOD SHUTIERS FRAZEE PAINT Rl\COON Cl-3176N I WINDOW & DOOR FRAMES WOOD RAILINGS FRAZEE PAINT FOSSll DUST CLW -1043W I STONE BASE AT FRONT BORALSTONE COBBLESlONE I VERTICAL COMPOSITE BOARD SIDING !IAPDIBO/\RO WHITE I COMPOSITE ROOFING SHINGLES OWENS CORN!NG WOODMOOR "CARRON I SMOOTH STEEL-TROWELED STUCCO MER LEX NAJAVOWHfTE I DECORATIVE BALCONY WROUGHT-IRON SATfN BLACK F!NlSH I BOARDFORM CONCRETE YELL.OW SANDSTONE STAIN D • ~ i ~ '5 {;-rE ·g ~ ' E ~ ~~~ :i:: ~"' Vl z ...;-c: "~ 32 -R-s 0.. c E ~ 0 ~ ..... ~ 12 g ~ C2 "' ~ 0 z <C "' 3 8 ~ -"' ---CM R 11 .I -------- (f) w 0:: ::J f-x i:L (,9 z ~I :c (,9 :::; 0 w rf) 0 a.. 0 0:: a.. l:fUJOJ!Jf') 'apw.1J9 ofo;JV ';~•ms i.puv;g jD['.>J<JWWO) l'>lN JOf ·is 4oueJ8 • !OlOH su1~dwo1 N'fld l'fOlcLL0313 3118 -------~---------., ' ' I -__J ---------------------- z ::5 a.. ....! <{ () 1i'.' f-5' () fl w" ....! ' w~ w~ f-" _(,) rf)<!l ~ ~ i • !l 9 ~ ' ' :;; ! t §. ' @ ~ ~ f " ! ~ (j) 8' l!ASFY£NT ~'QR "ED€SrR14N 4CCFSS TRAIL P€R ?0'-1-0(!9<103 0 ~j~'fff,');g0fy,~f!:'~No:frfrfJ/,f://:g:1;1g;;;:;. Pft:o%0~. fff'Xh9~G ~%PANCY. 0 ';,"{!Aoje.,;N~_:'~J,,';" n::,~;;'~~;-::;::;~~,);,~';;'',;'i';,=;;~;;:'. 0 ~.:~.'::'!:'..."~""·~~ 0 6' Pl.!BUC U11Ull£S EASEMENT TO C!TY PER 201"· 009402. © CEN'ff!?UNE 15' nRE HYVP4NT l!ASFYCNT TO CITY PCR 201"-009402 0 10' Sll?EET TRCE FA<;FMFNT Ppt;> 201.f-009-102 0 P[l)t:sn:?/AN ACCFSS £AS£Mf'NT TO CITY PER 2(114-009402, 0 EASf!MENT FOR P£0C:STP!AN Tf?A!t Pf.J'? 20H-00940J ® EAS/!lfFNT R£SFRllIT! BY BECKE7T FOR CUl ~".'.'> UNDCR PROPCRTY IN BlOCK 39 PE:R 42 DEEDS :;68 (NOT Pl on~m £) EASEMENTS ?-fOliN HFRFON ARE Pm PREVMWARY REPORT f!Y f7f'Fl!TY NA 170NAL 71ll.£, ORDER ,fFSLC-5:rt5(!()f94Dlff E'FFFCT'\1: DA i'f' 07/16/15. >MU= >Wn 'fl.ARDEN. STREET ~ >-. ::j ~ BRANCH STREET UNNAMED STREET {VACATED) 257 O,R, 440 NOTES: I. LAND IS LDCA TED IN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PER 1997-030090 O.R. & 2007-050252 2. ALL INTERIOR PROPERTY LINES TO BE ABANDONED WITH PROPOSED MERGER TOTAL AREA~ 20± AC ·~~ .. GRAPHIC SCALE ;-J a_~<'i ~ C) ~-~ ::t ~ ~ \) ;::i:: 1---: i3 G5 V) ~ !=\::: f...: LiJ ;I: VJ ~ (j i5 l(i <: ~<~ I-_ "' CJ "C l,j --.J cc ~ Qj...., ka hiad/hdmes assoc civil ''"'<J''""edng land .,.,rv.,y'n9 OATI; 7/27/15 --·· r~so· " 11.00577 owe 577 £XH/8!T 1 Minutes: HRC ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE2 Monday, September 18, 2015 Shirley Gibson provided information on additions to historic structures. Randy Russom, applicant and architect, spoke in support of the projec Caren Ray, property owner, spoke in support of the project. The Committee made comments on the colors of the propose pitches, the example of a carriage house in the City and the the two structures. The Committee provided differing o · the existing structure and the relationship between the tw of the Committee that due to the diverging opinions feasible. Shirley Gibson recused herself for the next two (2) · Associate Planner Downing provide tructure, the roof type and ed or compatibility between project overwhelming s. It was the consensus ommendation was not The Committee that had been made to the proposal since ject. d by Chu llows, to recommend approval of the project the Community Development Director for the following istent with the period; the addition of the garage is nsistent; and a wood type material on the porch is ded discussion on roof shingles and interior materials of the 3-0 voice vote, with Shirley Gibson and Vincent Allen absent. 9.c. CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007; CONSTRUCTION OF A 51-ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL; LOCATION - 325 E. BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE -STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS (DOWNING) Associate Planner Downing provided the staff report for the project. Minutes: HRC PAGE3 Monday, September 18, 2015 Michael Dammeyer, project architect, spoke in support of the project.. Steve Puglisi, applicant representative and architect, spoke in support of ti)€ project and provided clarification of materials and design. The Committee asked questions and made comments on the materials used on the structure, the design of the hotel, the specific details that incorporates the structure in with the Village, including tall and narrow windows, and cautioned on combining context periods. Chair Hart opened the meeting for public comment. Claire Clark, Arroyo Grande, commented that the developer has done spectacular work in the area, the sh like consideration on what the view from the street wil Hearing no further public comments, Chair Hart Bill Hart made a motion, seconded by Chuck of a boutique hotel in the Village. The motio Harloe dissenting and with Shirley Gibson and Vin Bill Hart made a motion, seconded the Village historically with the followin 1. The design of the 2. The wood shut 3. The hotel sh ows; special place, that the tel concept, and would RC approve e concept 2-1 voice vote, with Norma absent. e design of the hotel supports 4. 5. 6. ted over the front door; t time period; and 8.a. HISTORI There wer8 no u background regardi None. s types, including split-face block, for the vote, with Norma Harloe dissenting and with Shirley the historic resour~ll!!l'tfl"veys. Chair Hart provided staff with e work efforts. e Committee confirmed the next meeting date of October 9, 2015. ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY HALL SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, 300 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL ARC Members: Committee Members Bruce Berlin, Micl)a I Peachy, and Chair Warren were absent. Hoag were present. CommittezMem e<r's Mary Hertel and John Rubatzky City Staff Present: Community Development ,D rector Teresa McClish, Associate Planner Matthew Downing an Planning Secretary Debbie Weichinger were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Bruce Berlin led the Flag Salute TS AND SUGGESTIONS None F MINUTES Bruce Berli made a motion, seconded by Michael Peachey, to approve the minutes of August 31, 201 s submitted. The motion passed on a 3-0 voice vote. 6. ROJECTS 6.a. CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15- 007; CONSTRUCTION OF A 51-ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL; LOCATION -325 EAST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT-NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE -STEVE PUGLISI ARCHITECTS (DOWNING) Staff Contact: Matt Downing Associate Planner Downing presented the staff report and responded to questions from the Committee. Michael Dammeyer, representative, Steven Puglisi Architects, Inc., presented the project and responded to questions and concerns from the Committee. Nick Tompkins, applicant, NKT Commercial, responded to questions and concerns from the Committee. Minutes: ARC PAGE2 Monday, September 21, 2015 Chair Hoag opened the meeting for public comment. Heather Jensen, May Street, expressed her concern for traffic ingress/egress, indicated the proposed hotel seems overwhelming, and seems big for the area. Hearing no further public comments, Chair Hoag closed the public comment period. The Committee spoke in support for the project and provided the following comments: the proposed project fits well, split face block is not appropriate facing East Branch Street and recommend use of stone to tie in with local stone. The split face block on the side facing the creek could be simplified with stucco or straight block because of vegetation. like the pathway, add dormer vents, the applicant has done a good job working with the Design Guidelines, questioned why the two zoning districts are being combined, would like to save the oak tree, is in support of the landscape plan and the plant material selection; agree with HRC condition for the Monterey Colonial style and the shutters, and the detail between the new towers needs to be consistent. Michael Dammeyer, representative, Steven Puglisi Architects, Inc., and Nick Tompkins, applicant, NKT Commercial, responded to Committee Members comments. Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Michael Peachey, to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the following modifications: 1. Incorporate additional details to the transitional towers between the two buildings for ARC review. 2. An example of the experimental block wall shall be reviewed by the ARC or an alternative proposed. 3. The applicant shall provide additional details on roof venting for ARC review. 4. Support a simplistic design, longer windows, transom windows, and shutters. The motion carried on a 3-0 voice vote, with Mary Hertel and John Rubatzky absent. Bruce Berlin made a motion, seconded by Michael Peachey to continue the meeting past 5:00 pm as per By-laws. The motion carried on a 3-0 voice vote, with Mary Hertel and John Rubatzky absent. 6.b. CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-002 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERM1T15-006; CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 45,000 SQUARE-FQ{;l'f1VfEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING; LOCATION -800 FAIR OAKS AVENu§=1(ND WOODLAND DRIVE; APPLICANT -TRIPLE P LLC· REPRESE ;A1fVE -STUDIO DESIGN GROUP (DOWNING) Associate P~ owning presented the staff report and responded to questions from the C~teeon the proposed project. TRAFFIC COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2015 6. BUSINESS ITEMS ATTACHMENT 3 6.a CONSIDERATION OF LOT MERGER 15-004 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007; CONSTRUCTION OF A 51-ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTEL; LOCATION -325 EAST BRANCH STREET; APPLICANT-NKT COMMERCIAL; REPRESENTATIVE - STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS. RECOMMENDATON: It is recommended that the Traffic Commission review the proposed project and provide comments and advisement to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Henkel stepped down from the dais due to previous comments he made regarding this project. City Engineer, Matt Horn gave the staff presentation to the Commissioners. Chair Ross opened the public comment on this item and the following people spoke: • Otis Page -606 Myrtle -said that this project would make traffic in the village worse and suggests the mitigations be put in place to help the traffic problem. He said he likes the project. • Shirley Gibson -Halcyon -S(:lid as a member of the HRC, she recused herself, however, came to the Traffic Commission representing her son who owns a home on Mason. She supports a hotel as the Village previously had hotels. She is concerned about the amount of traffic and the walkability of the village with the additional traffic. S.he suggested approving the project with less units. • Patty-said that this project would negatively impact parking in the Village. She said she is disappointed in the hotel, the village needs a grocery store that would benefit the locals. Upon hearing no more Public Comments, Chair Ross closed public comment. Discussion ensued onthis project. ACTION: Commissioner Price made a motion to approve the project as presented. Vice Chair Carson seconded the motion and the motion passed on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Price, Carson, Pell, Ross None Henkel Commissioner Henkel returned to the dais. ATTACHMENT 4 Ctn OF ARROYO GRANDE CONSTRIJCTION MA TERIJ\LS This section provides examples of the most commonly found building materials used in the Village area of Arroyo Grande. There are also examples of construction materials under the Village Core and the Residential sections specific to those areas. All new projects shall use materials that fit within the character of the Village (see .following examples). Using similar materials or replicating these materials on all projects and restorations will extend the existing character extended throughout the Village. All restorations shall use materials that match or complement the original structure facilitating compatibility and preservation of its character. WEATHERBOARD WooDSIDING OR CLAPBOARD Most of the original housing and a few of the commercial buildings used horizontal wood siding or vertical board and batten for the exterior walls and trim of the buildings. Wood siding gives the buildings a sense of historic character, adding detail and texture. ATTACHMENT 5 GIJIDHINES & STANDllRDS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS 20 CEMENT PLASTER Cement plaster (including stucco) is not as common as wood or brick, however some of the commercial and residential buildings within the Village have plaster exteriors. Cement plaster buildings require detailing that gives them a historic "Village" feel. Buildings with plain plaster walls and no ornamentation are not appropriate for The Village . YELLOW INDIGENOUS SANDSTONE This type of stone is used on the old I.0.0.F. Hall on Bridge Street and the Old Brisco Hotel on East Branch Street. It is a golden stone that is shaped in large irregular chunks. The color of this natural stone adds a warm variety and individuality to the area. CITY OF ARROYO 6RllNDE BRICK AND STONE BLOCK Brick and stone blocks are most common on commercial buildings in the Village. Brick is an old construction material that was used in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the bulk of the historic commercial buildings in Arroyo Grande Village were built. The use of exposed plain concrete block is not permitted in the Historic Village Core District. WINDOW SASHES AND DOOR FRAMES Doors should be made of wood or a material that resembles an older style wooden door. For commercial areas, large industrial style glass doors and windows with metal frames are not appropriate. Doors with wood trim and windows with wood framing should be used. Aluminum and other frames that have a modem metal look are not appropriate for the Village. 6l/IDELINES & STllNDllRDS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS 21 CITY OF 1\RROYO GRANDE Site Design 1. All new projects or renovations shall adhere to the site development standards of the Development Code. 2. The existing front setbacks of zero to fifteen feet (O' to 15') shall be required with main entries facing the street. A majority of the building frontage shall face the street and incorporate design features oriented to the pedestrian. 3. Streetscape improvements shall complement the ex1stmg design sidewalk paving, lighting schemes and street furniture within the district. 4. All enclosures for service areas, trash or recycling containers shall be designed as part of the overall project or building. Materials, textures and colors should be consistent with those of the proposed project and compatible with adjacent buildings. 5. Landscaping shall retain ex1stmg trees and plants as much as possible. Street trees and sidewalk planters shall be incorporated where feasible and pedestrian circulation will not be obstructed. (Streetscape elements within the public right-of-way, require an Encroachment Pennit from the Public Works Department.) Landscaping in parking areas shall confonn to the requirements of Title 16 of the Municipal Code (Development Code). Building Design 1. The height of new buildings shall not exceed development standards allowed in Title 16 of the Municipal Code. Scale and massing of any building within this area shall be consistent with that of the neighboring buildings, as described above in "Similarity in Height, Scale and Massing". GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS 30 2. The existing pattern of building fac;ades shall be incorporated into new development projects. Dominant fac;ade designs incorporate either brick front elements or parapet features. Roof patterns generally associated with residential buildings such as gable, hip or gambrel are generally not appropriate for commercial building frontages in the Village Core Downtown District. 3. For retail commercial buildings, display windows should complement the design of surrounding historic buildings and shall be oriented to pedestrian traffic. 4. Transoms are common over display windows, and were used for light and ventilation. When possible, transoms should be incorporated into new building design, and existing transoms should be used in building renovations. 5. New construction should include elements such as cladding, roof structure and ornamentation common to the district. All new projects shall use materials including roof materials that fit within the character of the Village Core Downtown district. By using similar materials or replicating these materials on all projects and restorations, the existing character will be reinforced and extended. 6. Decorative fixtures, including awnings, signs, and lighting, shall be integrated with other design elements of the structures. Construction Materials 1. Brick and stone masonry are the most common far;:ade materials used on historic character structures in the Village Core Downtown district, and are acceptable fac;ade materials. Some brickwork has been painted, and this is consistent with design style of the 1870- 1939 period. (IT\' OF llRRO\'O GRll.NDE Other acceptable fa9ade materials include yellow sandstone (such as that on the I.0.0.F. building), and wood cladding. Wood cladding shall be of painted clapboard, painted weatherboard, or board and batten styles. Materials of similar design, color and texture may be considered. Smooth plywood panels are not appropriate unless detailed for the historic period. 2. Window sashes shall be of wood or painted steel, and consistent with the historic period. Materials that approximate the appearance of original materials may be substituted subject to the approval of the Architectural Review Committee, but unfinished aluminum is not allowed. 3. Door materials were traditionally wood panel and glass, either single or double. New or replacement doors shall be wood or an approved substitute material that approximates the appearance of original materials. Aluminum entry doors with large glass panels are inappropriate for the Village Core Downtown District. 4. Original decorative details should be retained during renovation. If the original materials have deteriorated and must be removed, they shall be replaced with materials that match as closely as possible the original in design, color, and texture. 5. Reflective glass is not appropriate in the Village Core Downtown District. Stained glass may be used as an accent material if it is consistent with the historic period of the building. Building colors 1. The number of colors used on a building should be kept to a minimum. GlllDELINES & ST/I.ND/I.RDS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS 31 2. While bright colors may be used for limited accent, their use is subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). 3. Color samples shall be submitted as part of Plot Plan Review or Conditional Use Pennit process. 4. The use of fluorescent, "neon" or "day- glo" colors on building facades is not appropriate, historic base colors should be used instead. 5. Accent colors used for ornamentation, awnings, <lentils, friezes or other details shall harmonize with the predominant building color. 6. Color palettes shall complement the majority of the neighboring buildings and be consistent with the historic period. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Vinaee Mixed use (VMU) This section of the Guidelines and Standards applies to areas between the Village Core Downtown and the Village Residential districts surrounding the Village, as shown on the Design Overlay map including the Public Facilities district. The Village Mixed Use district is intended to provide space for intensified mixed use projects compatible with adjoining commercial or residential districts. The Guidelines and Standards for this area are intended to enhance these transitional areas. An objective of the Village Mixed Use district is to maintain and develop mixed uses in a manner that allows a transition from the intense commercial character of the Village Core Downtown to the surrounding traditional Village Residential neighborhoods. Adaptive re-use of existing houses is encouraged to accommodate new uses while maintaining the historical residential heritage. The Village Mixed Use district should enhance pedestrian accessibility and activity and minimize the visual impact of automobiles. EXISTING CHARACTER GlllDELINES & SUNDllRDS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS 32 The Village Mixed Use districts contain a combination of commercial, office and residential uses rather than exclusively residential or commercial character evident in adjoining areas. Generally, the character of existing development reflects the period of the late 19111 Century, however, it derives its diversity from the combination of residential and commercial uses over time. Diversity in Scale Many of the buildings surrounding the Village Core Downtown are small residential structures that are being used as homes, offices, or small retail stores. The lot sizes and building types are more consistent with Village Residential areas. Most of the buildings are one story, however, some two story homes and offices exist proximate to the Village Core Downtown. Generally, the scale of the Village Mixed Use neighborhood is smaller with moderate sized separated buildings. Similarity of Material Building materials used m the Village Mixed Use district generally reflect those used in Village Residential neighborhoods rather than Village Core Downtown commercial buildings. The most common cladding material is either weatherboard or clapboard wood siding. Other popular materials include stucco or plaster, and shingles of various designs are often seen as accent materials or ornamentation, especially on gable ends. The most common roofing material is composition shingle, and INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conditional Use Permit 15-007 Lot Merger 15-004 New 51 Room Boutique Hotel 325 East Branch Street November 2015 ATTACHMENT 6 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 3 of 52 Project: Conditional Use Permit 15-007 and Lot Merger 15-004 Lead Agency: City of Arroyo Grande Document Availability:  City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420  http://www.arroyogrande.org/ Project Description: The proposed project includes the merger of six (6) lots and the construction of a 27,728 square-foot, fifty-one (51) room boutique hotel on an undeveloped, 1.86 acre lot zoned Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed Use (VMU), with frontage on both East Branch Street and Le Point Street. The hotel will be constructed adjacent to Tally Ho Creek and includes the completion of the creek side pedestrian pathway from East Branch Street to Le Point Street. Approximately sixty-five (65) parking spaces will be developed in conjunction with the project. Summary Document Preparation: Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The City, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. _________________________________ Teresa McClish, AICP Date Community Development Director _________________________________ Matthew Downing, AICP Date Associate Planner INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 4 of 52 Table of Contents: Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance..................................................................................................... 6 Lead Agency .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Document Organization ....................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Findings................................................................................................................................. 7 Project Description........................................................................................................................................ 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Location ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Background and Need for Project ............................................................................................................. 8 Project Description.................................................................................................................................... 8 Other Required Public Agency Approvals ................................................................................................. 9 Related Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 10 Project Information ................................................................................................................................. 10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................... 11 Determination ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Issues .................................................................................................................................. 13 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 13 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ....................................................................................................... 13 III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 14 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 19 V. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 23 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 24 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................... 26 VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 29 IX Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 30 X. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 33 XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 33 XII. Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 34 XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................................... 34 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 35 XV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 36 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 5 of 52 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 36 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................................... 38 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................................................ 40 Summary of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 41 References .................................................................................................................................................. 50 Documents & Maps ................................................................................................................................ 50 Attachments ............................................................................................................................................ 50 Consultations .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Project Plans ............................................................................................................................................... 51 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 6 of 52 Introduction Introduction and Regulatory Guidance The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq. An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)]. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR [CEQA Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR need not be prepared. This IS/MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15071. Lead Agency The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande. The contact person for the lead agency is: Matthew Downing, Associate Planner City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 473-5420 Purpose and Document Organization The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to eliminate any potentially significant impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. This document is organized as follows:  Introduction This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document.  Project Description This chapter describes the reasons for the project, scope of the project, and project objectives. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 7 of 52  Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures This chapter identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts, explains the environmental setting for each environmental issue, and evaluates the potential impacts identified in the CEQA Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist. Mitigation measures are incorporated, where appropriate, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than- significant level.  Mandatory Findings of Significance This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall significance of any potential impacts to natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts, and impact to humans, as identified in the Initial Study.  Summary of Mitigation Measures This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures incorporated into the project as a result of the Initial Study.  References This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this IS/MND. It also provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document. Summary of Findings Section 3 of this document contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that identifies the potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project. In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information and the environmental analysis presented in this document, there is no substantial evidence that, after the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment. It is proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 8 of 52 Project Description Introduction This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project, described below. Location The project site is located in the Village of Arroyo Grande, between East Branch Street and Le Point Street adjacent to Tally Ho Creek. The site is surrounded by commercial, residential and public facility uses. Background and Need for Project The City’s General Plan and Development Code provide for a mix of commercial and residential uses in the Village of Arroyo Grande. The proposed project will provide a new visitor serving commercial use on property that is currently vacant. Project Description The proposed project includes the merger of six (6) lots and the construction of a 27,728 square-foot, fifty-one (51) room boutique hotel on an undeveloped, 1.86 acre lot zoned Village Core Downtown (VCD) and Village Mixed Use (VMU), with frontage on both East Branch Street and Le Point Street. The hotel will be constructed adjacent to Tally Ho Creek and includes the completion of the creek side INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 9 of 52 pedestrian pathway from East Branch Street to Le Point Street. Approximately sixty-five (65) parking spaces will be developed in conjunction with the project. Other Required Public Agency Approvals N/A Related Projects Conditional Use Permit 12-004, Variance 12-002 and Lot Merger 12-001 – Branch Street Market Project. The project site was previously entitled for the construction of a 10,000 square foot market and associated site improvements, including parking, drainage, access, etc. Phase I of the site improvements was previously completed and includes the easternmost driveway access, parking, trash enclosure, and a segment of the pedestrian pathway. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 10 of 52 Environmental Checklist Project Information Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 15-007 Lot Merger 15-004 Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Brach Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Contact Person & Telephone Number: Matthew Downing, Associate Planner (805) 473-5420 Project Location: 325 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA Project Sponsor Name & Address: NKT Commercial 684 Higuera Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use (MU) Zoning: Village Core Downtown (VCD) Village Mixed-Use (VMU) Description of Project: Refer to page 8 Surrounding Land Uses & Setting: The project site is surrounded by commercial, residential and public facility land uses; it is bordered on the east by Tally Ho Creek Approval Required from Other Public Agencies: None INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 11 of 52 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the original scope of the proposed project COULD have had a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect because revisions/mitigations to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or its functional equivalent will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment. However, at least one impact 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 in the report's attachments. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the impacts not sufficiently addressed in previous documents. I find that, although the proposed project could have had a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated, pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than- significant level and no further action is required. _________________________________ Matthew Downing, AICP Date Associate Planner INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 12 of 52 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers, except "No Impact", that are adequately supported by the information sources cited. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact does not apply to the project being evaluated (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on general or project-specific factors (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must consider the whole of the project-related effects, both direct and indirect, including off-site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change may occur in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures, prior to declaration of project approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR (including a General Plan) or Negative Declaration [CCR, Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, § 15063(c)(3)(D)]. References to an earlier analysis should: a) Identify the earlier analysis and state where it is available for review. b) Indicate which effects from the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in the earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether these effects were adequately addressed by mitigation measures included in that analysis. c) Describe the mitigation measures in this document that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and indicate to what extent they address site-specific conditions for this project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts into the checklist or appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an indication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion. 8. Explanation(s) of each issue should identify: a) the criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate the significance of the impact addressed by each question and b) the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of significance. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 13 of 52 Environmental Issues I. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The City is mostly built-out, with distinct residential, commercial and agricultural districts and several mixed-use areas. The City also contains portions of three creeks and several open space areas. The City has been recognized as a “Tree City” for each of the last 30 years. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 nighttime views in the area? Discussion a, b: The proposed project will maintain a 25’-35’ setback from Tally Ho Creek, preserving view corridors along the creek. Less than significant impact c: The project complies with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4) as recommended by the Architectural Review Committee on September 21, 2015. Less than significant impact d: The project will create a new source of nighttime lighting in the form of parking lot lights, building lights, and illuminated signage. However, compliance with applicable Municipal Code standards in Section 16.48.090 will ensure that this new source of lighting will not adversely affect nighttime views in the area. There are not anticipated impacts associated with daytime light or glare. Less than significant impact References: 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, AA II. Agriculture and Forest Resources Environmental Setting The City of Arroyo Grande contains approximately 460 acres of active farmland, most of which is Prime Farmland consisting of Class I and Class II soils. There are no forest resources located within the City. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 14 of 52 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? * In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model for use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Discussion a-e: No impact References: 1, 3, 4, 9 III. Air Quality Environmental Setting San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment status for ozone (O3), respireable particulate matter (PM10) and vinyl chloride under the California Air Resource Board (CARB) standards. The County is in attainment status for all other applicable CARB standards. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 15 of 52 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? * Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make these determinations. Discussion a: No impact b-d: The proposed project does not exceed emission thresholds established by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD); however, both construction and operational phases of the project may impact air quality. Less than significant with mitigation Construction Phase Emissions MM III-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:  Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location.  Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. MM III-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. MM III-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5 minute idling limit. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 16 of 52 MM III-4: The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development):  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;  Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and  Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. MM III-5: The following standard mitigation measures for construction equipment shall be implemented to reduce the ROG, NOx, and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions during construction of the project:  Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;  Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);  Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;  Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;  Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;  All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;  Electrify equipment when feasible;  Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and  Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. MM III-6: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402):  Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.  Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible.  All dirt stockpile areas shall be sprayed daily or as needed.  Permanent dust-control measures identified in the approved revegetation/landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil- disturbing activities.  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one (1) month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 17 of 52  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD).  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved surface at the construction site.  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.  Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the construction site.  Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used where feasible.  The contractor/builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity and to prevent the transport of dust off-site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) prior to the start of any construction-related activities.  All on-road hauling trucks shall be 2003 or newer to reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions.  All on-site off-road construction equipment shall be 2003 or newer or be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters (CDPF) or diesel oxidation catalysts.  A listing of all required mitigation measures shall be included on grading and building plans; and,  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition MM III-7: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. MM III-8: All portable equipment (50 horsepower or greater) used during construction must be issued a permit by either the CARB or the APCD. MM III-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 18 of 52 discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:  Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal.  Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.  Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted.  During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance.  Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. MM III-10: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. Operational Phase Emissions MM III-11: The project proponent shall coordinate with and obtain all necessary equipment and operation permits that are required by APCD. Typical equipment requiring such permits includes, but is not limited to, the following:  Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;  Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators;  Boilers;  Internal combustion engines;  Sterilization unit(s) using ethylene oxide and incinerator(s); and  Cogeneration facilities. e: Operation of the commercial portion of the proposed project may create objectionable odors affecting adjacent residents. Less than significant with mitigation MM III-12: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include the establishment of a ‘no idle’ zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques:  Each delivery vehicle’s engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering.  The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible.  Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the ‘no idle’ zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. Copies of the letters shall be sent to the City Community Development Department.  Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines.  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted.  Use of alternative-fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible.  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. References: 10, 11, 15 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 19 of 52 IV. Biological Resources Environmental Setting Although mostly built-out, the City contains portions of three creeks and several open space areas that provide habitat to a variety of flora and fauna. The project site is a remainder infill parcel in an area of both residential and commercial development that has been disturbed by previous grading activities. The site is located adjacent to the riparian habitat of Tally Ho Creek. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 plan? Discussion a: Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFG under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 20 of 52 California. Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the CNDDB by the CDFW because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. A search and review of the CNDDB revealed six special-status plant species and five special-status wildlife species with recorded occurrences within the approximately three-mile search radius of the proposed project site. Suitability for special-status plant species occurrence was based on elevations, soil types, habitats present at the project site, and a focused rare plant survey conducted in 2009. Five species evaluated for the project are included on the CNPS inventory of rare species, and one species is formally listed as a federal threatened and state rare species. The special-status plant species occurrences recorded in the CNDDB are typically associated with a specific soil type, such as sands or serpentine, or habitat types (assemblage of plants). The special-status plant species associated with gravelly sandy loam soils that may occur in grassland habitat is the Hoover’s bent grass (Agrostis hooveri), straight-awned spineflower (Chorizanthe rectispina), San Luis Obispo owl’s clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis), and La Panza mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis). These species can be found in dry sandy and/or serpentine soils in grassland, open chaparral, and oak woodland habitats. None of these species were observed during the focused rare plant field surveys conducted in 2009 and no habitat for these species was observed on the project site in 2012 (Attachment A). The black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata) occurs in and along the edge of riparian habitat but was not observed during field surveys or recorded in the CNDDB search. The Well’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos wellsii) is typically found in sandy soils in the hills around Arroyo Grande and may no longer be considered a separate species. No species of manzanita were observed on the project site. The Pismo clarkia (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata) is also known from areas of sandy soils along the perimeter of oak woodland habitat in the region. The onsite gravelly soils are not conducive to the Pismo clarkia and this species was not observed during field surveys of the project site. In addition, no rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were observed during the floristic inventory field reconnaissance survey of the site in 2009 and no native habitats currently occur on the project site outside of the riparian corridor. Special-status wildlife species can be grouped based upon habitat requirements. The monarch butterfly uses sheltered tree groves for winter aggregations. The site does not support suitable tree groves and no monarch butterfly aggregations have been reported on the project site or in the CNDDB. The American badger occurs in grassland habitat with friable soils and abundant small mammal prey. The small “infill” patch of ruderal grassland habitat and gravely compacted soils are not conducive to badger occurrence and no potential badger burrows or other sign were observed during field surveys. Less than significant impact b: Tally Ho Creek supports an over story riparian habitat and appears to be a perennial stream along the eastern border of the site. The project reach of Tally Ho Creek is shaded by riparian habitat and appears to support suitable aquatic habitat for the southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida) and the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). No specific location is provided in the CNDDB for the southwestern pond turtle but suitable aquatic and adjacent mud banks occur along Tally Ho Creek that could support this highly aquatic turtle species. The CNDDB has recorded occurrences of the California red-legged frog in Tally Ho Creek upstream of the project area and in Arroyo Grande Creek upstream of the confluence with Tally Ho Creek. While not INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 21 of 52 confirmed through surveys, since the California red-legged frog has been recorded ½ mile upstream in Tally Ho Creek and downstream in Arroyo Grande Creek, and has a hydrological connection to Arroyo Grande Creek a short distance downstream, it is assumed the project site provides habitat that could be used by the California red-legged frogs during some part of their lifecycle. Tally Ho Creek is a tributary of Arroyo Grande Creek which is known habitat and designated Critical Habitat for south/central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). At low flow there is an approximately three foot stepped drop at the downstream end of the Branch Street bridge culvert in Tally Ho Creek that represents at least a partial barrier to the upstream movement of steelhead through the project area. Steelhead are not known to use Tally Ho Creek. Less than significant with mitigation MM IV-1: The applicant shall implement the native riparian habitat restoration plan approved by the CDFW via an Operation of Law letter issued under Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification 1600-2013-0207-R4 on June 23, 2014. MM IV-2: No variance to the 35-foot setback shall be allowed and the riparian restoration plan shall be implemented along all project areas along Tally Ho Creek as a part of project construction, unless the average building setback remains greater than or equal to 35-feet. At no time shall the building extend into the 25-foot setback. MM IV-3: The applicant shall design the bioswale/retention basin to support native seasonal wetland and upland plant species to enhance and complement the riparian habitat restoration. MM IV-4: The walking trail shall be located the furthest distance from the top of bank within the 35 foot setback area as feasible. c: No impacts to steelhead would result from the proposed project as no work is proposed in the stream, the existence of a partial barrier in Tally Ho Creek below the Branch Street bridge culvert downstream of the project site, and the lack of history and suitability of steelhead in the creek upstream of the project site. The California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle are highly aquatic species that are rarely found far from water. The southwestern pond turtle will use the mud banks of creeks to excavate nests for egg laying. The encroachment into the riparian thicket above the top of bank would not likely impact any adults or nests for the southwestern pond turtle. The use of uplands for forage, shelter, and dispersal between breeding sites are well documented common behaviors of the California red-legged frog. This species is also known to use riparian or other dense thicket vegetative cover that provides a shaded moist environment to avoid desiccation if aquatic habitat dries down or when they venture from water. Given the recorded occurrence in Tally Ho Creek, suitable aquatic and adjacent riparian habitat, the California red-legged frog could be found in the riparian habitat at any given point in its yearly lifecycle. As such, any further removal of riparian vegetation, bank stabilization or any work activities below top of bank or in the creek could impact the California red-legged frog. Less than significant with mitigation MM IV-5: Prior to any vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall provide for a survey for nesting pond turtles to be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If an active southwestern pond turtle nest is found, then it shall be avoided with a non-disturbance buffer INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 22 of 52 zone determined by a qualified biologist until the nest site is not longer used by adult and/or young turtles. MM IV-6: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed vegetation removal/enhancements, outfall structure, or other work in Tally Ho Creek. Should a permit be required, the City shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. Issuance of a Corps permit also requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB that may also carry conditions to protect water quality and restore habitat. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than significant level. MM IV-7: Prior to any further vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the California red-legged frog in the form of a take permit/authorization or written documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the California red-legged frog or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City and/or the project applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance as described above would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to a less-than-significant level. d: Development of the project would reduce the amount of non-native ruderal annual grassland habitat available to locally common species. Given the relatively small size of the site and the surrounding developed areas in the Village of Arroyo Grande, the upland areas do not represent any substantial movement opportunities for wildlife species. However, construction activities that remove grassland vegetation and trees could impact ground and/or tree nesting resident and migratory birds. Destruction of birds and their nests/eggs is prohibited by Sections 3503 and 3503.5 (specifically raptors) of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Less than significant with mitigation MM IV-8: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. MM IV-9: If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 23 of 52 non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. e: The City’s Community Tree Program regulates the removal of trees in residential, mixed-use, and commercial zones, including trees removed in associating with property development. The project is conditioned to conform to the Community Tree Program and as such will not conflict with the City’s tree preservation goals. Less than significant impact f: No impact References: 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 16, 17, A V. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting Previous investigations have indicated the presence of Native Americans within the present-day City Limits during prehistoric times. There are a handful of designated historical resources within the City, including the IOOF Hall, the Pauling House and the Bridge Street Bridge. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Discussion a, b: A Phase I archeological study was conducted for the project site in 2009 and updated in 2015 (Attachment B). This study resulted in the recovery of numerous samples of Pismo clam shell fragments, abalone shell, ceramics, small animal bone fragments and glass fragments, all of which constitute historic materials. Therefore, the project site has the potential to contain both prehistoric and historic cultural resources and any grading or ground disturbing activities may have an impact on historical or archaeological resources. Less than significant with mitigation MM V-1: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all grading activities. The monitor shall work closely with construction crews in close proximity to earth moving equipment in order to investigate and evaluate exposed materials immediately upon exposure and prior to disturbance. A daily log shall be maintained by the monitor to record when and where earth-moving activities take place within the project area, as well as the INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 24 of 52 presence/absence of archaeological materials in the monitored matrix. In the event that prehistoric cultural materials or historic cultural materials are encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and the archaeologist allowed to quickly record, collect, and analyze any significant resources encountered. The client and the City shall be notified should resources meeting CEQA significance standards be discovered. The archaeologist shall work as quickly as possible to permit resumption of construction activities. It is preferred that location data of finds be recorded using a hand-held global positioning system receiver (GPSr). Following the field analysis work, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a final monitoring/mitigation report that includes a description of the methods used, materials recovered, and the results of historic or prehistoric analysis of those materials. The final archaeological monitoring/mitigation report prepared by the qualified archaeologist shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior to submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A copy shall be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file. c: No Impact d: The proposed project will require grading and ground disturbance, which may disturb human remains, including those that have been interned outside of formal cemeteries. Less than significant with mitigation MM V-2: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered remains. References: 5, B VI. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting There are two faults within city limits, the Pismo Fault and the Wilmar Avenue Fault. The Pismo Fault is an inactive fault, and presents a low risk to Arroyo Grande. The Wilmar Avenue fault is a potentially active fault that runs through the City, generally parallel to US 101. Approximately half of the city is at moderate risk for liquefaction caused by strong seismic ground shaking during an earthquake. These areas are primarily located south of US 101 and in the eastern part of the City. The majority of the City is at low risk for landslides. The areas at greatest risk are hillsides where greater slopes are located. The potential for slope stability hazards in valley areas is low to very low. The areas at greatest risk for landslide are just north of US 101 in the hillsides and in the eastern portions of the City. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 25 of 52 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) 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.) 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4) 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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion a: The Wilmar Avenue Fault is a potentially active fault, and could trigger an earthquake, causing strong seismic ground shaking and ground failure due to liquefaction. However, the proposed project will be constructed in accordance with all applicable seismic standards and would not increase the exposure of users to seismic hazards. Less than significant impact b: Ground disturbance associated with the proposed project could cause soil erosion and loss of topsoil, and increase the rate of stormwater runoff, also causing soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, the proposed project will comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 13.24, “EXCAVATION, GRADING, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL” and therefore would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Less than significant impact c, d: A preliminary geotechnical investigation report was prepared for the project site which identified that the project site is suitable for the proposed project, provided that recommendations presented in INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 26 of 52 the report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications (Attachment C). Less than significant with mitigation MM VI-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical survey report prepared for the project by GSI Soils, Inc. (July 2015). Final improvement plans submitted to the City shall be accompanied by a letter of certification from the civil engineer that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical investigation report and all applicable Codes and Ordinances. e: No impact References: 3, 5, 15, C VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting The City of Arroyo Grande emitted approximately 96,549 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in the baseline year 2005. The transportation sector was by far the largest contributor to emissions (57.0%), producing approximately 55,030 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. Emissions from the residential sector were the next largest contributor (24.6%), producing approximately 23,778 metric tons of CO2e. The commercial and industrial sectors accounted for a combined 12.3% of the total. Emissions from solid waste comprised 6.0% of the total, and emissions from other sources such as agricultural equipment comprised 0.1%. The majority of emissions from the transportation sector were the result of gasoline consumption in private vehicles traveling on local roads, US 101, and state highways. Greenhouse gas (GHG) figures from the waste sector are the estimated future emissions that will result from the decomposition of waste generated by city residents and businesses in the base year 2005, with a weighted average methane capture factor of 60.0%. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion a, b: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions are said to result in an increase in the earth’s average surface temperature. This is commonly referred to as global warming. The rise in global temperature is associated with long-term changes in precipitation, temperature, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth’s climate system. This is also known as climate change. These changes are now thought to be broadly attributed to GHG emissions, particularly those emissions that result from the human production and use of fossil fuels. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 27 of 52 The passage of AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006), recognized the need to reduce GHG emissions and set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law. The law requires that by 2020, State emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels. This is to be accomplished by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions. Subsequent legislation (e.g., SB97-Greenhouse Gas Emissions bill) directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop statewide thresholds. In March 2012, the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) approved thresholds for GHG emission impacts, and these thresholds have been incorporated in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. APCD determined that a tiered process for residential/commercial land use projects was the most appropriate and effective approach for assessing the GHG emission impacts. The tiered approach includes three methods, any of which can be used for any given project:  Qualitative GHG Reduction Strategies (e.g. Climate Action Plans): A qualitative threshold that is consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures and goals; or,  Bright-Line Threshold: Numerical value to determine the significance of a project’s annual GHG emissions; or,  Efficiency-Based Threshold: Assesses the GHG impacts of a project on an emissions per capita basis. For most projects the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons CO2/year (MT CO2e/yr) will be the most applicable threshold. In addition to the residential/commercial threshold options proposed above, a bright-line numerical value threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr was adopted for stationary source (industrial) projects. It should be noted that projects that generate less than the above mentioned thresholds will also participate in emission reductions because air emissions, including GHGs, are under the purview of the California Air Resources Board (or other regulatory agencies) and will be “regulated” either by CARB, the Federal Government, or other entities. For example, new vehicles will be subject to increased fuel economy standards and emission reductions, large and small appliances will be subject to more strict emissions standards, and energy delivered to consumers will increasingly come from renewable sources. Other programs that are intended to reduce the overall GHG emissions include Low Carbon Fuel Standards, Renewable Portfolio standards and the Clean Car standards. As a result, even the emissions that result from projects that produce fewer emissions than the threshold will be subject to emission reductions. Under CEQA, an individual project’s GHG emissions will generally not result in direct significant impacts. This is because the climate change issue is global in nature. However, an individual project could be found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. Projects that have GHG emissions above the noted thresholds may be considered cumulatively considerable and require mitigation. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has established mitigation measures to reduce project-level GHG emissions. Implementation of the following mitigation measure is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan and will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 28 of 52 MM VII-1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures:  Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools.  Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design shall provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees.  No residential wood burning appliances.  Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees are recommended.  Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used.  Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted.  Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer.  Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) that are available locally if possible.  Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.  Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design).  Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters.  Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®).  Utilize double-paned windows.  Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium).  Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.  Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats.  Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.  Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting.  Provide on-site bicycle parking both short term (racks) and long term (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended.  Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel- powered TRUs at the loading docks.  Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 29 of 52  Provide an on-site electrical vehicle charging station. References: 10, 11 VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting There are no known hazardous materials sites in the City, nor are there any airports within the vicinity of the City. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? Discussion a-h: No impact INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 30 of 52 References: 1, 4, 5, 12, 15, 16 IX Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The City of Arroyo Grande draws its water supply from a combination of the Lopez Reservoir and groundwater wells. Wastewater is provided by the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District. The City adopted interim low-impact development (LID) guidelines to address stormwater runoff issues in 2009. The project site is directly adjacent to Tally Ho Creek. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam? j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 31 of 52 Discussion a, c-e: The project is required to comply with the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, which require the site to retain the 95th percentile of a 24 hour storm event for projects adding more than 15,000 square-feet of impervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the proposed project will be captured in an onsite bioswale/retention basin configuration. This bioswale/retention basin is designed to retain and infiltrate small stormwater runoff. Larger stormwater runoff exceeding the bioswale/retention basin capacity similar to historic flow patterns would be non-erosive sheet flow making its way to Tally Ho Creek. The stormwater and drainage management system is designed without the need for a storm water outfall structure in Tally Ho Creek. If dewatering is necessary areas where groundwater is encountered within the planned depth of excavation, depending on surface and groundwater levels at the time of construction, a permit for discharge of the extracted groundwater will be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). This discharge shall be consistent with RWQCB requirements and as such would not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Less than significant with mitigation MM IX-1: If dewatering is necessary in areas where groundwater is encountered within the planned depth of excavation, the applicant shall obtain a permit for discharge of the extracted groundwater from the RWQCB prior to construction in areas where dewatering would be required. b: The proposed project is not anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge since the project will comply with the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. Discussion of water supply is covered in Section XVII Utilities and Service Systems. Less than significant impact f: The State Water Quality Control Board requires municipalities, via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to minimize negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems and degradation of water quality to the maximum extent practicable. Permittees must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to the technology-based standard of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) to protect water quality. The goals of post-construction BMPs are to prevent and control erosion and sedimentation, provide source control of potential pollutants, control and treat runoff, and protect wetlands and water quality resources. Post- construction BMPs are required to achieve stormwater quality standards through site-planning measures. Vegetative swales or other biofilters are recommended as the preferred choice for post- construction BMPs for all projects with suitable landscape areas, because these measures are relatively economical and require limited maintenance. For projects where landscape based treatment is impracticable, or insufficient to meet required design criteria, other post-construction BMPs should be incorporated. All post-construction BMPs must be maintained to operate effectively. Implementation of the BMPs listed below will reduce the potential impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM IX-2: The following water quality BMPs shall be incorporated into the project:  Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system.  Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 32 of 52  Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain.  Vehicle/Equipment Cleaning. Commercial/industrial facilities or multi-family residential developments of 50 units or greater shall either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run-on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer.  Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system.  Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned.  Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas.  Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.  Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit.  Street/Parking Lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing shall be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Wash water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser shall be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. g-h: The proposed project will place a structure within the 100-year floodplain. A Flood Plain Encroachment Analysis performed by North Coast Engineering, Inc. (October, 2015) concluded that no increase to the 100 year water surface elevation will occur (Attachment D), which is in compliance with Municipal Code Section 16.44.050 “PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION”. Less than significant impact i, j: No impact INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 33 of 52 References: 5, 6, 7, 15, 18, D X. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The City encompasses approximately 5.5 square-miles and is bisected north/south by US Highway 101. There are several distinct land use categories and zoning districts for residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and mixed uses. The City is adjoined by the cities of Pismo Beach and Grover Beach to the west and unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County to the north, east and south. The project site is designated as Mixed-Use (MU) in the City’s Land Use Element and zoned Village Core Downtown and Village Mixed-Use (VCD/VMU). Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with the applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a 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 plan? Discussion a-c: No impact References: 1, 3, 5, 15 XI. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting There are no known mineral resources in the City of Arroyo Grande. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is or 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? Discussion a-b: No impact INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 34 of 52 References: 5 XII. Noise Environmental Setting Noise exposure throughout the City is primarily caused by automobile traffic on surface streets and US Highway 101, with intermittent noise generated by agricultural operations and construction activities. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? b) Generate or expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above levels without the project)? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of noise levels existing without the project? e) Be 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? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a, b, d: The use of construction vehicles and equipment has the potential to generate excessive levels of noise; however, these noise levels would be temporary and intermittent, and all construction activities will comply with applicable City policies regarding noise. Less than significant impact c, e, f: No impact References: 1, 3, 13, 15 XIII. Population and Housing Environmental Setting Arroyo Grande has a population of 17,252 (2010 Census) with an average household size of 2.4 persons. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 35 of 52 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a-c: No impact References: 1, 4, 5, 15 XIV. Public Services Environmental Setting The City of Arroyo Grande administers its own police department and parks and recreation facilities. Fire protection is provided by the Five Cities Fire Authority through a joint powers agreement (JPA). The Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD) provides K-12 educational facilities. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in significant environmental impacts from construction associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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? Discussion a: No impact References: 1, 2, 5 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 36 of 52 XV. Recreation Environmental Setting The Recreation Services Department oversees recreational activities throughout the City and manages the City’s various parks and open spaces. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a-b: No impact References: 1, 2, 5 XVI. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The City’s street network consists of a hierarchy of street types which serve different functions. These include freeways, arterials, collectors, local streets and alleyways. Freeways route traffic through the community and are characterized by large traffic volumes and high- speed travel. Arterials link residential and commercial districts and serve shorter through traffic needs. Due to the heavier traffic on arterials, adjacent land uses are intended to be a mix of commercial and multi-family residential. Collector streets link neighborhoods to arterials and are not intended for through traffic but are nonetheless intended to move traffic in an efficient manner. Local streets are designed to serve only adjacent land uses and are intended to protect residents from through traffic impacts. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 37 of 52 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion a, b: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (9th Edition), the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 432 daily trips, thirty-two (32) of which would occur during the AM peak-hour and thirty-four (34) of which would occur during the PM peak hour. A traffic study was prepared for the proposed project (Attachment E), which identified that of the six (6) intersections studies, all operate at a level of service (LOS) C or better, with the exception of the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection, which currently operates at an LOS F. This means that the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection routinely experiences long delays. This LOS will continue to existing in the future, with or without project approval. During the 2001 update of the General Plan, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted that accepted that those land uses prescribed by the General Plan would have unavoidable significant impacts to the Village circulation system but that the opportunities for new employment and increased revenue had a positive impact to the fiscal health of the City that outweighed the negative impacts. Based on this statement, the proposed project will add to the congestion and the identified intersection; however, payment of Traffic Impact Fees will assist the City in implementing a solution to the congestion at this intersection while additionally contributing to the City’s fiscal health. Less than significant with mitigation INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 38 of 52 MM XVI-1: The developer shall pay the project’s fair share contribution to the City’s Traffic Mitigation Fee Program to mitigate the project’s additional impact to East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection. MM XVI-2: The developer shall pay all traffic impact fees for Street Improvements and Traffic Signals for impacts to the overall City circulation network. c: No impact d: The westernmost driveway on East Branch Street may increase traffic hazards if movements at the driveway are not restricted to right-in, right-out. Less than significant with mitigation MM XVI-3: East Branch Street, east of Mason Street, shall be restriped so that the westbound left-turn pocket is visually separated from the center turn lane. e, f: No impact References: 1, 3, 13, 15, 16, E XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting Water and sewer utilities are provided by the City of Arroyo Grande and the City’s stormwater drainage system is divided into three (3) drainage zones. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment restrictions or standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? Would the construction of these facilities cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities? 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 that serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to service the project’s anticipated demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 39 of 52 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 as they relate to solid waste? Discussion a-b: No impact c: The project site will be required to comply with the City’s Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, which require the site to retain the 95th percentile of a 24 hour storm event for projects adding more than 15,000 square-feet of impervious surfaces. This can be accommodated on site and does not necessitate the construction of new drainage facilities. Less than significant impact d: The 2012 Water System Master Plan provides water demand factors based on land use. The project site is located in the Mixed-Use Land Use category, which has a demand factor of 1,788 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre). The project site is 1.86 acres, which results in water demand of 3,167.58 gpd or 1703 gpd/acre. This amount of demand is covered by existing resources in the projected build-out population of 20,000 residents and constitutes 0.01% of the City’s allocated supply. Additionally, A Water Use Analysis was performed by Balance Green Consulting (2015) that identifies methods of water saving that will result in water use below that anticipated by the Water System Master Plan (Attachment F). Lastly, all new development in the City is required to either implement a water neutralization program or pay a water neutralization fee to offset increased water demand generated by the development. Therefore, there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project, even in light of current drought conditions. Less than significant with mitigation MM XVII-1: The project shall incorporate all water consumption strategies, fixtures, and equipment identified and assumed in the Branch Street Hotel Water Use Analysis. e-g: The proposed project will be served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which has adequate permitted capacity to serve the project. Less than significant impact References: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, F INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 40 of 52 Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially 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; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Have possible environmental effects that are individually limited but 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, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of possible future projects. d) Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a: Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not substantially 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. Less than significant impact b: There are no short-term environmental goals, either in the project description or the identified mitigation measures, that would be achieved to the disadvantage of long-term environmental impacts. Less than significant impact c: As described in this Initial Study, the implementation of the proposed project could result in temporary impacts during its construction period. Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study would ensure that the proposed project would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Less than significant impact d: With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Less than significant impact INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 41 of 52 Summary of Mitigation Measures MM III-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:  Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location.  Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. MM III-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. MM III-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5 minute idling limit. MM III-4: The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development):  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;  Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and  Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. MM III-5: The following standard mitigation measures for construction equipment shall be implemented to reduce the ROG, NOx, and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions during construction of the project:  Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;  Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);  Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;  Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;  Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;  All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit; INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 42 of 52  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;  Electrify equipment when feasible;  Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and  Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. MM III-6: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402):  Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.  Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering frequency when wind speeds exceed 15 MPH. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible.  All dirt stockpile areas shall be sprayed daily or as needed.  Permanent dust-control measures identified in the approved revegetation/landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil- disturbing activities.  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked more than one (1) month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.  All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting or other methods approved in advance by the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD).  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks and other areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 MPH on any unpaved surface at the construction site.  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.  Wheel-washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment prior to leaving the construction site.  Streets shall be swept at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used where feasible.  The contractor/builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and implement these measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity and to prevent the transport of dust off-site. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) prior to the start of any construction-related activities.  All on-road hauling trucks shall be 2003 or newer to reduce diesel PM and NOx emissions.  All on-site off-road construction equipment shall be 2003 or newer or be retrofitted with diesel particulate filters (CDPF) or diesel oxidation catalysts. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 43 of 52  A listing of all required mitigation measures shall be included on grading and building plans; and,  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. MM III-7: Prior to any grading activities, the project sponsor shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Air Resource Board (ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations. MM III-8: All portable equipment (50 horsepower or greater) used during construction must be issued a permit by either the CARB or the APCD. MM III-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:  Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal.  Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.  Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted.  During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance.  Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. MM III-10: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. MM III-11: The project proponent shall coordinate with and obtain all necessary equipment and operation permits that are required by APCD. Typical equipment requiring such permits includes, but is not limited to, the following:  Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;  Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators;  Boilers;  Internal combustion engines;  Sterilization unit(s) using ethylene oxide and incinerator(s); and  Cogeneration facilities. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 44 of 52 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD, Public Works Dept., Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM III-12: Operation of any commercial building with a loading area shall include the establishment of a ‘no idle’ zone for diesel-powered delivery vehicles. Vehicle idling shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible using the following techniques:  Each delivery vehicle’s engine shall be shut off immediately after arrival in the loading dock or loading area, unless the vehicle is actively maneuvering.  The scheduling of deliveries shall be staggered to the maximum extent feasible.  Vehicle operators shall be made aware of the ‘no idle’ zone, including notification by letter to all delivery companies. Copies of the letters shall be sent to the City Community Development Department.  Prominently lettered signs shall be posted in the receiving dock area to remind drivers to shut off their engines.  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted.  Use of alternative-fueled vehicles is recommended whenever possible.  Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD, Public Works Dept., Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM IV-1: The applicant shall implement the native riparian habitat restoration plan approved by the CDFW via an Operation of Law letter issued under Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification 1600-2013-0207-R4 on June 23, 2014. MM IV-2: No variance to the 35-foot setback shall be allowed and the riparian restoration plan shall be implemented along all project areas along Tally Ho Creek as a part of project construction, unless the average building setback remains greater than or equal to 35-feet. At no time shall the building extend into the 25-foot setback. MM IV-3: The applicant shall design the bioswale/retention basin to support native seasonal wetland and upland plant species to enhance and complement the riparian habitat restoration. MM IV-4: The walking trail shall be located the furthest distance from the top of bank within the 35 foot setback area as feasible. MM IV-5: Prior to any vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall provide for a survey for nesting pond turtles to be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If an active southwestern pond turtle nest is found, then it shall be avoided with a non-disturbance buffer zone determined by a qualified biologist until the nest site is not longer used by adult and/or young turtles. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 45 of 52 MM IV-6: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed vegetation removal/enhancements, outfall structure, or other work in Tally Ho Creek. Should a permit be required, the City shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. Issuance of a Corps permit also requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB that may also carry conditions to protect water quality and restore habitat. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than significant level. MM IV-7: Prior to any further vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the California red-legged frog in the form of a take permit/authorization or written documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the California red-legged frog or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City and/or the project applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance as described above would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to a less-than-significant level. MM IV-8: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. MM IV-9: If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD, Public Works Dept. Timing: Prior to issuance of Grading Permit and during construction MM V-1: A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor all grading activities. The monitor shall work closely with construction crews in close proximity to earth moving INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 46 of 52 equipment in order to investigate and evaluate exposed materials immediately upon exposure and prior to disturbance. A daily log shall be maintained by the monitor to record when and where earth-moving activities take place within the project area, as well as the presence/absence of archaeological materials in the monitored matrix. In the event that prehistoric cultural materials or historic cultural materials are encountered, work in the immediate vicinity of the finds shall be suspended and the archaeologist allowed to quickly record, collect, and analyze any significant resources encountered. The client and the City shall be notified should resources meeting CEQA significance standards be discovered. The archaeologist shall work as quickly as possible to permit resumption of construction activities. It is preferred that location data of finds be recorded using a hand-held global positioning system receiver (GPSr). Following the field analysis work, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a final monitoring/mitigation report that includes a description of the methods used, materials recovered, and the results of historic or prehistoric analysis of those materials. The final archaeological monitoring/mitigation report prepared by the qualified archaeologist shall be accepted by the Community Development Director prior to submittal to the repository and issuance of any final occupancy for the project. A copy shall be provided to the Community Development Director for retention in the project file. MM V-2: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and the San Luis Obispo County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified and will identify the Most Likely Descendent, who will be consulted for recommendations for treatment of the discovered remains. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during grading activities MM VI-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical survey report prepared for the project by GSI Soils, Inc. (July 2015). Final improvement plans submitted to the City shall be accompanied by a letter of certification from the civil engineer that the plans are in conformance with the geotechnical investigation report and all applicable Codes and Ordinances. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division; Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit MM VII-1: All construction plans shall reflect the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit impact reduction calculations based on these measures to the APCD for review and approval, incorporating the following measures:  Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools.  Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design shall provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 47 of 52  No residential wood burning appliances.  Provide employee lockers and showers. One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees are recommended.  Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used.  Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted.  Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer.  Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) that are available locally if possible.  Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.  Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design).  Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters.  Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®).  Utilize double-paned windows.  Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium).  Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.  Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats.  Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.  Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting.  Provide on-site bicycle parking both short term (racks) and long term (lockers, or a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet peak season maximum demand. One bike rack space per 10 vehicle/employee space is recommended.  Require the installation of electrical hookups at loading docks and the connection of trucks equipped with electrical hookups to eliminate the need to operate diesel- powered TRUs at the loading docks.  Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units.  Provide an on-site electrical vehicle charging station. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Building Division; APCD Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit MM IX-1: If dewatering is necessary in areas where groundwater is encountered within the planned depth of excavation, the applicant shall obtain a permit for discharge of the extracted groundwater from the RWQCB prior to construction in areas where dewatering would be required. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 48 of 52 MM IX-2: The following water quality BMPs shall be incorporated into the project:  Roof Downspout System. Direct roof drains to pervious areas to allow infiltration prior to discharging to water bodies or the municipal storm drain system.  Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels.  Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain.  Vehicle/Equipment Cleaning. Commercial/industrial facilities or multi-family residential developments of 50 units or greater shall either provide a covered, bermed area for washing activities or discourage vehicle/equipment washing by removing hose bibs and installing signs prohibiting such uses. Vehicle/equipment washing areas shall be paved designed to prevent run-on or run off from the area, and plumbed to drain to the sanitary sewer.  Common Area Litter Control. Implement trash management and litter control for commercial and industrial projects or large-scale residential developments to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system.  Food Service Facilities. Design food service facilities (including restaurants and grocery stores) to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipments that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned.  Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas.  Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.  Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit.  Street/Parking Lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing shall be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Wash water containing any cleaning agent or degreaser shall be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 49 of 52 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit MM XVI-1: The developer shall pay the project’s fair share contribution to the City’s Traffic Mitigation Fee Program to mitigate the project’s additional impact to East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection. MM XVI-2: The developer shall pay all traffic impact fees for Street Improvements and Traffic Signals for impacts to the overall City circulation network. MM XVI-3: East Branch Street, east of Mason Street, shall be restriped so that the westbound left-turn pocket is visually separated from the center turn lane. MM XVII-1: The project shall incorporate all water consumption strategies, fixtures, and equipment identified and assumed in the Branch Street Hotel Water Use Analysis. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – CDD; Engineering Division; Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 50 of 52 References Documents & Maps 1. Arroyo Grande General Plan 2. Arroyo Grande Land Use Map 3. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code 4. Arroyo Grande Zoning Map 5. Arroyo Grande Existing Settings Report & Draft Arroyo Grande Existing Settings Report (2010) 6. Arroyo Grande Urban Water Management Plan 7. Arroyo Grande Water System Master Plan (2012) 8. Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (2012) 9. San Luis Obispo Important Farmland Map (California Department of Conservation, 2006) 10. CEQA & Climate Change White Paper (CAPCOA, 2008) 11. Air Quality Handbook (SLO APCD, 2012) 12. Arroyo Grande Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012) 13. Bicycle and Trails Master Plan (2012) 14. Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan (2013) 15. Project Plans 16. Site Inspection 17. Native Riparian Habitat Restoration Plan (Oasis Associates, 2012) 18. Flood Plain Analysis and Calculations (North Coast Engineering, 2007) Attachments A. Biological Assessment (Sage Institute Inc., 2012) B. Phase I Archeological Survey (CRMS, 2009) C. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report (GSI Soils, Inc., 2015) D. Flood Plain Encroachment Analysis (North Coast Engineering, 2015) E. Traffic Impact Study (Omni-Means, 2015) F. Water Use Analysis (Balance Green Consulting, 2015) Consultations AA. Arroyo Grande Architectural Review Committee INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 51 of 52 Project Plans THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION November 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-007 & LOT MERGER 15-004 Page 52 of 52 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT June 12, 2012 Prepared for: CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTURE ATTACHMENT A CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................................................ 1 2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 2 3.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................... 3 3.3 WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................................. 3 3.4 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS .......................................................... 3 3.5 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN .................................. 4 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 5 5.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 6 6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 8 7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A – FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION TOPOGRAPHIC AND CNDDB MAP FIGURE 2: VICINITY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND CNDDB MAP FIGURE 3: 2012 EXISTING CONDITIONS HABITAT MAP FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) conducted a biological resources background data review and field survey for the proposed Branch Street Market project in the City of Arroyo Grande (City). Phase I involves the development of a up to a 10,000 square foot building, parking, a bioswale/retention basin and onsite drainage management facilities, and landscaping with a pedestrian path along the Tally Ho Creek corridor. Phase II is proposed residential development to be designed at a later date. The purpose of this biological assessment is to document existing conditions of the proposed project site and to evaluate the potential for any direct or indirect significant impacts on biological and/or wetland resources, or adverse affects on any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or wildlife species (special-status species). This report is intended to support the preparation of required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review documentation and other regulatory compliance efforts that may be needed to proceed with the proposed project. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The project site is located between East Branch Street and Le Pointe Street in the Village area of the City of Arroyo Grande in San Luis Obispo County. The site is bordered on the south by East Branch Street, on the east by Tally Ho Creek, to the north by existing residential development and Le Pointe Street, and on the west by existing commercial/residential development and Mason Street. Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A provide project vicinity topographic and aerial photograph location maps respectively. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes two phases: Phase I includes the construction of up to a 10,000 square foot commercial building, appurtenant parking as required by the City, and a landscaped corridor with pedestrian path along Tally Ho Creek from East Branch Street to Le Pointe Street; and Phase II that includes residential development to be designed at a later date (see Figure 3). Storm water runoff is proposed to be captured in an onsite bioswale/retention basin configuration. This bioswale/retention basin will be designed to retain and infiltrate small storm runoff. Larger storm water runoff exceeding the bioswale/retention basin capacity similar to historic flow patterns would be non-erosive sheet flow making its way to Tally Ho Creek. The storm water and drainage management system is designed without the need for a storm water outfall structure in Tally Ho Creek. The City’s General Provisions for Creek Protection for Tally Ho Creek in the Municipal Code require a minimum creek setback of thirty five (35) feet. Further, these provisions prohibit the clearing of significant vegetation canopy cover or herbaceous ground cover or removal of any native plant species in the riparian area setback. Projects in the Village Core Downtown can, through project applications, provide for an average 35-foot setback but can under no circumstances be less that 25-feet. The proposed bioswale/retention basin, pedestrian path, and a native riparian plant species habitat restoration plan is proposed within the 35-foot setback along Tally Ho Creek throughout both the Phase I and Phase II project areas. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 2 2.0 METHODS SII conducted a review of available background information including the proposed project layout, local soils survey, and a search and review of the current California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) within an approximately three-mile radius of the proposed project site. The CNDDB provided a list and mapped locations of special-status plant and wildlife species that have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site to focus the field survey efforts on specific species or habitat issues. A biological assessment and rare plant survey report for the current project site and additional parcels no longer a part of this project was prepared in 2009 by SII for a previous proposed project on the Branch Street Market project site (Sage Institute 2009). This report was reviewed for identifying any recent changes in the site conditions for establishing current existing conditions of the proposed project site. As the 2009 SII report is in the public record, it is hereby incorporated by reference into this study as additional background information. Sage II Principal Ecologist David Wolff conducted a field reconnaissance of the project site on May 2, 2012 to document the existing conditions of the site in terms of habitat for plants and wildlife species, and potential to support wetland and/or riparian habitats. The field survey was conducted on foot using meandering transects throughout the site affording near 100 percent visual coverage of the project site. Plant and wildlife species observed in the field were recorded. The on-site habitat types were described by the aggregation of plants and wildlife based on the composition and structure of the dominant vegetation observed at the time field reconnaissance was conducted. The survey data collected on plant species and conclusions presented in this biological assessment are based on the methods and field reconnaissance conducted over the project site as described above. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Project site topography is mostly level ground that slopes gently up to the toe of the hill below Le Pointe Street. General characteristics of the onsite vegetation include bare ground, sparse areas of weedy non- native annual grasses and forbs, woody riparian vegetation along Tally Ho Creek, and several large eucalyptus trees. Ruderal (weedy) vegetation is found on the eastern half of the site along with patches of mostly bare ground. Non-native annual grasses and associated native and non-native annual forbs can be found on the slopes of the site mixing with ruderal species. Woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation is found along the top of the creek bank, down the creek bank slopes, and along the waterway of the creek. The western two-thirds of the property consist of the existing paved and dirt parking lot lacking vegetation or any habitat for native plants or wildlife species. The entire eastern one-third of the site that borders the riparian corridor of Tally Ho Creek is a flat area with a cover ruderal non-native grassland habitat and layer of recently chipped mulch extending to the top of bank of Tally Ho Creek. The previous SII study in 2009 documented an approximately 0.98 acre riparian habitat thicket of native and non-native blackberries, willow trees, poison oak, and coyote brush shrubs extending beyond the top of bank through the site. Current conditions show that approximately 0.56 acre of this thicket habitat has been recently removed up to the top of creek bank. Chipped mulch has been placed throughout this recently cleared area. The extent of riparian thicket documented in 2009 compared to that observed in 2012 is shown on Figure 3. Figure 4 provides representative photographs of the current site conditions. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3 3.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES 3.2.1 Ruderal Annual Grassland & Trees The sparse remaining ruderal annual grassland habitat is generally composed of non-native annual grass and herbaceous broadleaf plant species. Species observed characterizing the ruderal annual grassland habitat includes wild oats (Avena sp.), ripgut brome and soft chess (Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus.), and foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum). Common herbaceous species include mustards (Brassica/Hirschfeldia spp.), filarees (Erodium spp.), veldt grass (Ehrharta calycina), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), and sweetclover (Melilotus sp.) In addition there are three well established eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus), California pepper trees (Schinus molle), and blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) trees. The understory of the trees is non-native grasses and ruderal weeds. 3.2.2 Valley-Foothill Riparian Valley-foothill riparian habitat typically consists of a canopy layer of mature trees with an understory of shrubs and herbaceous upland and wetland species. The project site supports valley-foothill riparian habitat associated with Tally Ho Creek that forms the eastern border of the site. The canopy of this habitat type is dominated by thicket forming arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) trees. Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), thornless blackberry (Rubus canadensis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and a number of annual grassland species comprise the understory of the on-site riparian habitat. 3.2.3 Urban Land The western portion of the study area is considered urban land composed of the paved parking lot and compacted dirt area void of vegetation. 3.3 WILDLIFE The annual grassland and riparian habitat types on the proposed project site provide limited habitat for common resident and migratory wildlife species typical in the region as it is a small patch of habitat surrounded by the urban habitat of the downtown village of Arroyo Grande and other residential and commercial developments. Bird species observed in the riparian area included the commonly occurring black-headed grosbeak, Pacific slope flycatcher, spotted towhee, western scrub jay, wrentit, common bushtit, and red-shouldered hawk. These represent both resident and migratory bird species and there are likely more species using the site, and primarily the riparian habitat, than those observed during the single field visit. The majority of wildlife use was observed in and around the trees, and within the riparian area on the eastern border of the site since no established vegetation occurs on the remainder of the site. Tally Ho Creek could provide habitat for amphibians and both native and non-native fish species. 3.4 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS Tally Ho Creek enters the site adjacent to Le Pointe Street and exits the site through a larger concrete culvert under a bridge on East Branch Street and is a tributary to the Arroyo Grande Creek a short distance south of East Branch Street. Tally Ho Creek has a distinct bed, bank, and channel and appears to CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 4 be a perennial creek through the project area. As such, Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat could be considered as waters of the U.S. and adjacent wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under the Federal Clean Water Act, and waters of the State under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 jurisdiction. 3.5 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFG under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the CNDDB by the CDFG because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. The search and review of the CNDDB revealed six special-status plant species and five special-status wildlife species with recorded occurrences within the approximately three-mile search radius of the proposed project site. Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A provide maps of CNDDB special-status species recorded occurrences within approximately three miles of the project site. 3.5.1 Special-Status Plants A total of six special-status plant species were recorded in the CNDDB within an approximately three- mile radius of the project site that were evaluated for potential occurrence on the proposed project site. Suitability for special-status plant species occurrence was based on elevations, soil types, habitats present at the project site, and the focused rare plant survey conducted by SII in 2009. Five species evaluated for the project are included on the CNPS inventory of rare species, and one species is formally listed as a federal threatened and state rare species. The special-status plant species occurrences recorded in the CNDDB are typically associated with a specific soil type, such as sands or serpentine, or habitat types (assemblage of plants). The special-status plant species associated with gravelly sandy loam soils that may occur in grassland habitat is the Hoover’s bent grass (Agrostis hooveri), straight-awned spineflower (Chorizanthe rectispina), San Luis Obispo owl’s clover (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis), and La Panza mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis). These species can be found in dry sandy and/or serpentine soils in grassland, open chaparral, and oak woodland habitats. None of these species were observed during focused SII rare plant field surveys on 2009 and no habitat for these species was observed on the project site by SII in 2012. The black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata) occurs in and along the edge of riparian habitat but was not observed during field surveys or recorded in the CNDDB search. The Well’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos wellsii) is typically found in sandy soils in the hills around Arroyo Grande and may no longer be considered a separate species. No species of manzanita were observed on the project site. The Pismo clarkia (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata) is also known from areas of sandy soils along the perimeter of oak woodland habitat in the region. The onsite gravelly soils are not conducive to the Pismo clarkia and this species was not observed during field surveys of the project site. In addition, no rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were observed during the floristic inventory field reconnaissance survey of the site by SII in 2009 and no native habitats currently occur on the project site outside of the riparian corridor. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 5 3.5.2 Special-Status Wildlife The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of five special-status wildlife species within an approximately three-mile radius of the project site. Special-status wildlife species known from the region evaluated for this study can be grouped based upon habitat requirements. The monarch butterfly uses sheltered tree groves for winter aggregations. The site does not support suitable tree groves and no monarch butterfly aggregations have been reported on the project site or in the CNDDB. The American badger occurs in grassland habitat with friable soils and abundant small mammal prey. The small “infill” patch of ruderal grassland habitat and gravely compacted soils are not conducive to badger occurrence and no potential badger burrows or other sign were observed during field surveys. Tally Ho Creek supports an over story riparian habitat and appears to be a perennial stream along the eastern border of the site. The project reach of Tally Ho Creek is shaded by riparian habitat and appears to support suitable aquatic habitat for the southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida) and the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). No specific location is provided in the CNDDB for the southwestern pond turtle but suitable aquatic and adjacent mud banks occur along Tally Ho Creek that could support this highly aquatic turtle species. The CNDDB has recorded occurrences of the California red-legged frog in Tally Ho Creek upstream of the project area and in Arroyo Grande Creek upstream of the confluence with Tally Ho Creek. While not confirmed through surveys, since the California red-legged frog has been recorded ½ mile upstream in Tally Ho Creek and downstream in Arroyo Grande Creek, and has a hydrological connection to Arroyo Grande Creek a short distance downstream, it is assumed the project site provides habitat that could be used by the California red-legged frogs during some part of their lifecycle. Tally Ho Creek is a tributary of Arroyo Grande Creek which is known habitat and designated Critical Habitat for south/central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). At low flow there is an approximately three foot stepped drop at the downstream end of the Branch Street bridge culvert in Tally Ho Creek that represents at least a partial barrier to the upstream movement of steelhead through the project area. Steelhead are not known to use Tally Ho Creek. 4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The Branch Street Market project site supports a ruderal annual grassland plant community dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, recently mulched areas lacking vegetation, and scattered trees and shrubs surrounded by the commercial and residential areas on an infill parcel in the downtown Village of Arroyo Grande. A narrow strip of willow riparian habitat follows Tally Ho Creek along the eastern boundary of the project site. The small size of the site, downtown location and surrounding existing urban land, compacted parking area, and neighboring residential and commercial development further contribute to the relatively low habitat values of the upland areas of the project site for biological resources. However, the patches of riparian vegetation along the eastern border of the site provides the higher value for wildlife species as it provides a movement corridor for both aquatic and upland species. The shaded aquatic habitat within Tally Ho Creek does provide suitable habitat for the California red- legged frog based on recorded occurrences and connectivity with Arroyo Grande Creek a short distance downstream of the project site. The property does support habitat for resident and migratory wildlife species commonly known from the region especially birds nesting and foraging in the riparian habitat. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 6 It appears that approximately 0.56 acre of riparian thicket vegetation has been recently removed that extended from the top of the Tally Ho Creek bank onto the project site. The proposed site plan includes encroachment into the former riparian thicket area that was composed mostly of the non-native Himalayan blackberry and thornless blackberry with a willow overstory. The proposed bioswale/retention basin, pedestrian path, and a native riparian plant species habitat restoration plan is proposed within the 35-foot setback from the current edge of riparian habitat along Tally Ho Creek through both the Phase I and Phase II project areas.The encroachment would be above the top of bank and would not directly impact the aquatic habitat of the creek. However, the recent vegetation removal and proposed project storm water management and habitat restoration activities may encroach into the CDFG Code 1602 jurisdiction of the CDFG. Development of the project would reduce the amount of non-native ruderal annual grassland habitat available to locally common species. Given the relatively small size of the site and the surrounding developed areas in the Village of Arroyo Grande, the upland areas do not represent any substantial movement opportunities for wildlife species. However, construction activities removing grassland vegetation and trees could impact ground and/or tree nesting resident and migratory birds. Destruction of birds and their nests/eggs is prohibited by Sections 3503 and 3503.5 (specifically raptors) of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No impacts on the steelhead would result from the proposed project as no work is proposed in the stream, the existence of a partial barrier in Tally Ho Creek below the Branch Street bridge culvert downstream of the project site, and the lack of history and suitability of steelhead in the creek upstream of the project site. The California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle are highly aquatic species that are rarely found far from water. The southwestern pond turtle will use the mud banks of creeks to excavate nests for egg laying. The encroachment into the riparian thicket above the top of bank would not likely impact any adults or nests for the southwestern pond turtle. The use of uplands for forage, shelter, and dispersal between breeding sites are well documented common behaviors of the California red-legged frog. This species is also known to use riparian or other dense thicket vegetative cover that provides a shaded moist environment to avoid desiccation if aquatic habitat dries down or when they venture from water. Given the recorded occurrence in Tally Ho Creek, suitable aquatic and adjacent riparian habitat, the California red-legged frog could be found in the riparian habitat at any given point in its yearly lifecycle. As such, any further removal of riparian vegetation, and/or while not proposed, bank stabilization or any work activities below top of bank or in the creek could impact the California red-legged frog. 5.0 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS To reduce potentially significant impacts on riparian habitat and associated creek dependent species from recent vegetation management activities, and proposed storm water management facilities, pedestrian trail, and riparian habitat restoration within the 35-foot setback , the following mitigation measures are recommended.  The applicant shall develop and implement a native riparian habitat restoration plan for the area located between the development and the current edge of riparian habitat. The restoration plan shall include the use of locally occurring native riparian tree, shrub, and herbaceous species, biodegradable erosion control mats/nets, soil stabilizing mulch/tackifier, and other erosion control devises to restore and stabilize the habitat restoration zone within the 35-foot creek setback along both the Phase I and Phase II project areas. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 7  No variance to the 35-foot setback shall be allowed and the riparian restoration plan shall be implemented along both the Phase I and Phase II project areas along Tally Ho Creek as a part of the Phase I project construction.  The applicant shall design the bioswale/retention basin to support native seasonal wetland and upland plant species to enhance and complement the riparian habitat restoration.  The walking trail should be located the furthest distance from the top of bank within the 35-foot setback area as feasible.  The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFG that no agreement would be required for the recent vegetation removal and proposed storm water management facilities and riparian restoration activities within the Tally Ho Creek set back. Should an agreement be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFG. The CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on riparian habitat and the stream zone. In addition, CDFG may require compensatory mitigation for impacts on riparian habitat in the form of habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than-significant level. To reduce any potentially significant impact on nesting birds from any additional vegetation and tree removals, the following mitigation measures are recommended.  Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.  If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non- disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. While no work or elements of the proposed project would directly impact Tally Ho Creek, or below top of bank, in the event final project design requires work in Tally Ho Creek (such and an outfall structure or bank stabilization), the following mitigation measures are recommended.  Prior to any vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall provide for a survey for nesting pond turtles to be conducted by a qualified biologist. If no nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. If an active southwestern pond turtle nest is found, then it shall be avoided with a non-disturbance buffer zone determined by a qualified biologist until the nest site is not longer used by adult and/or young turtles. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 8  The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed vegetation removal/enhancements, outfall structure, or other work in Tally Ho Creek. Should a permit be required, the City shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. Issuance of a Corps permit also requires a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB that may also carry conditions to protect water quality and restore habitat. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than- significant level.  Prior to any vegetation clearing or work in Tally Ho Creek and adjacent riparian habitat, the applicant shall obtain compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act for potential impacts on the California red-legged frog in the form of a take permit/authorization or written documentation from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that the proposed project would not result in take of the California red-legged frog or would otherwise not adversely affect the species. Should a take permit/authorization be required, or conditions imposed by the USFWS to ensure that no take would result from the project, the City and/or the project applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the USFWS permit, authorization, or recommendations to the satisfaction of the USFWS. The USFWS can only provide take authorization for projects that demonstrate the species affected would be left in as good as or better condition than before the project was implemented. Additionally, the USFWS cannot authorize any project that would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. As such, regulatory compliance as described above would reduce potential impacts on the CRLF to a less-than-significant level. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, based on the findings described above establishing the existing conditions of biological resources within the project site, and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on biological, botanical, wetland, or riparian habitat resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered to be at a less than significant level. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 9 7.0 REFERENCES 1) Baldwin, Bruce G., Douglas H. Goldman, David J Keil, Robert Patterson, Thomas J. Rosatti, Ed. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. 2) California Department of Fish and Game (CNDDB). 2012. Natural Diversity Data Base of recorded occurrences of special-status species. 3) California Native Plant Society. 2012. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 2012. 4) Hickman, James C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. 5) Peterson, Roger Tory. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Company. 6) Sage Institute, Inc. 2009. Village Walk, Arroyo Grande, California, Biological Assessment. Prepared for Rick Loughead. August 6, 2009. 7) Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler‐Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, 2nd edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 8) Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company. CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE BRANCH STREET MARKET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10 APPENDIX A FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION TOPOGRAPHIC AND CNDDB MAP FIGURE 2: VICINITY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND CNDDB MAP FIGURE 3: HABITAT MAP FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 1 June 12, 2012 Regional / CNDDB Map Branch Street Market Biological Assessment City of Arroyo Grande GF Copyright: © 2010 National Geographic SocietyCopyright: © 2010 National Geographic Society source(s):CDFG, CNDDB, 05/12. GF Site Location Steelhead Critical Habitat CNDDB Occurrences (2-mile) California red-legged frog steelhead - south/central California coast ESU American badger southwestern pond turtle (location info. suppressed) monarch butterfly Wells' manzanita Pismo clarkia straight-awned spineflower San Luis Obispo owl's-clover La Panza mariposa-lily Hoover's bent grass 0.25 0 0.25 0.50.125 MilesZ1 : 40,000 Figure 2 June 12, 2012 Aerial Photo Map Branch Street Market Biological Assessment City of Arroyo Grande GF Site Location Steelhead Critical Habitat CNDDB Occurrences (2-mile) California red-legged frog steelhead - south/central California coast ESU American badger southwestern pond turtle (location info. suppressed) monarch butterfly Wells' manzanita Pismo clarkia straight-awned spineflower San Luis Obispo owl's-clover La Panza mariposa-lily Hoover's bent grass 500 0 500 1,000 1,500250FeetZ1 : 20,000 source(s):CDFG, CNDDB, 05/12. Figure 3 June 12, 2012 2012 Existing Conditions Branch Street Market Biological Assessment City of Arroyo Grande Site Boundary Riparian Scrub Removal 2012 Existing Conditions Annual Grassland / Ruderal & Trees Urban Land Valley-Foothill Riparian 100 050FeetZ1 : 955.93 Figure 4 Branch Street Market Project Site Representative Photographs Page 1 of 1 Photo 1: View northeast from Branch Street at existing paved area, ruderal and mulched areas, eucalyptus trees, and Tally Ho Creek riparian corridor. 5/2/2012 Photo 2: View southwest towards Branch Street at muched area, ruderal habitat, eucalyptus, and edge of Tally Ho Creek riparian corridor. 5/2/2012 Photo 3: View east from edge of project site along Branch Street at compacted and muched areas lacking vegetaiotn and Tally Ho Creek riparian area. 5/2/2012 Photo 4: View northeast from Branch Street sidewalk at riparian habitat edge and recently cleared/mulched area along Tally Ho Creek top of bank. 5/2/2012 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY OF A 2.81 ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF EAST BRANCH STREET AND MASON STREET, ARROYO GRANDE, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA [APN: 007-202-004,013,014,017,018,019,024 and 007-203-0141 Prepared for: Rick Loughead c/o Firma Consultants, Inc. 1034 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared by: Allison Lober Cultural Resource Management Services 829 Paso Robles Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 July 21,2009 CRMS Project No. 44-707 ATTACHMENT B INTRODUCTION At the request of Mr. Rick Loughead, Cultural Resource Management Services (CRMS) conducted a Phase I Archaeological Inventory Survey of a 2.81 acre parcel at the corner of East Branch Street and Mason Street, Arroyo Grande, California (APN 007-202-004,013,014,017, 018,019,024 and 007-203-014) (Figures 1,2,3 & 4). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), both a literature search and field survey was conducted in order to identify and evaluate any prehistoric or historic cultural resources on the property. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The property is located within the City of Arroyo Grande, California, on the East side of California State Highway 101. It contains the former JJ's Market and adjoining parking lot, one private residence, and one vacant lot with a metal railing and concrete steps. Located adjacent to a small drainage (Tally Ho Creek) which flows into Arroyo Grande Creek, the area is covered with seasonal grasses, oak, willow, pine, and eucalyptus trees, nasturtiums, trumpet vines and a large prickly pear cactus. The majority of the project area contains dark gray-brown soil of medium texture. Soil near the vacant lot on Le Point Street, and close to the creek drainage is finer, sandier, and lighter brown in color. CULTURAL BACKGROUND Prehistoric investigations in San Luis Obispo County have only recently begun to construct a general framework that attempts to describe the changes in lifestyle and culture that have occurred over the last several thousand years. Previous archaeological investigations were largely concerned with only a single point on the landscape, or relied heavily on information from better-known areas such as the Santa Barbara Channel in order to interpret findings. Figure 1: Vicinity Map (No Scale) Figure 2: USGS 7.5' Quad, Arroyo Grande NE and Oceano -3- Figure 3: Assessor's Parcel Map wproperty and Survey Area Identified Figure 4: Tentative Tract Map Map Courtesy of North Coast Engineering, Inc. Now, a basic understanding of the sequence of cultural changes that have occurred in this area is beginning to appear. The following time periods for the prehistory of the central coast have been proposed by Mikkelsen, Hildebrandt, and Jones (1998): Paleoindian Period Millingstone Period Early Period Middle period Middle/Late Transition Late Period 11,000-8500 Years Before Present (B.P.) 8500-5500 B.P. 5500-2600 B.P. 2600-1000 B.P. 1000-700 B.P. 700-450 B.P. Other investigators (e.g. Jones and Waugh 1995) also add a Protohistoric Period (45-150 B.P.). ETHNOGRAPHY At the time of European contact, the Arroyo Grande area was occupied by the northernmost subdivision of the Chumash, the Obispeiio (Kroeberl925, Gibson 198213). Archaeological evidence indicates that coastal San Luis Obispo County was occupied as early as 9000 years ago, as indicated by dates from excavations at Diablo Canyon (Greenwood 1972) and Edna Valley (Fitzgerald 1998). Though their language was more similar to Southern Chumash groups, the material culture and lifeways of the Northern Chumash appear to have been more similar to their northern neighbors, the Salinan. Accordingly, their populations are thought to have been lower, their village sizes smaller, and their livelihood less based on intensive use of marine fisheries (Greenwood 1978, Glassow and Wilcoxon 1988). Like most hunting and gathering peoples, the Obispeiio Chumash followed a seasonal round of movements based on the timing and abundances of plant and animal resources. Important resources to the Obispefio Chumash probably included a variety of small seeds, acorns, fish, shellfish, and large and small game animals. The traditional lifeways of the Chumash were dramatically altered by the Spanish mission system and later Mexican and American settlement of the area. The incursion of these new groups also introduced diseases that devastated indigenous populations. Many people claiming Chumash ancestry still reside in the local area. History The historical period of Arroyo Grande began in the early 1800's when California was part of Mexico. Among the first to settle the area was Francisco Ziba Branch. Branch had arrived in California in 1832 with the Wolfskill trapping expedition and opened a store in Santa Barbara. Branch married Manuela Carlon in 1835 and was granted the 17,000-acre Santa Manuela Rancho where he established his home in 1837 (Rivers 2000, Robinson 1957:48, Dart 1978:25, Krieger 1988, Ditmas 2000:43).0ver the next several years he acquired the Arroyo Grande, Pismo, Huer Huero Rancho, and parts of other Ranchos. Along with may other cattle ranchers, Branch suffered during the droughts of 1862 and 1863. His herd of 20,000 in 1863 dwindled to 800 by 1864 through starvation (Angel 1883:219). He was forced to sell some of his holdings, including large parcels of the Arroyo Grande Rancho, to Edgar and George Steele. In 1867, a school and blacksmith shop were established on Arroyo Grande Creek, near the old stage road. This marked the birth of the Town of Arroyo Grande. The Steele brothers subdivided their Arroyo Grande Rancho land into smaller farms and lots along Arroyo Grande Creek (Nicholson 1980:12). By 1876 Arroyo Grande had two hotels, two stores, two saloons, a wheel wright and blacksmith shop, post office, school house, butcher shop, laundry, livery and feed stable, and a large number of private residences (Angel 1883:351). Arroyo Grande got a huge economic boost in 1881 when the Pacific Coast Rail Road (PCRR) track was completed from San Luis Obispo south to the new station in town. Hoping to attract the railway, the City of Arroyo Grande had donated the right- of way through the town and the land for a station and warehouse. Unfortunately, due to a shortage of rolling stock, regular service to Arroyo Grande didn't begin until 1883 (Ditmas 2000:280). In anticipation, farmers had been delivering grain to the loading dock and upon its arrival three trainloads of grain left daily for Port Harford (now Port San Luis) (Best 1964:25). By 1891, businessmen in San Luis Obispo County were working hard to acquire right-of-way land, which would allow the Southern Pacific Railroad to pass through the county as part of its planned route from San Francisco to Los Angeles. With the arrival of the Southern Pacific Rail Road, the development of roads, and the use of trucks and automobiles for commercial transport, the Pacific Coast Rail Road was gradually made more and more obsolete. Locals remember the PCRR daily trains change to three times a week, then twice a week, then once a week and finally no longer frequent enough to be predictable. Finally in 1942, the remaining PCRR track and hardware was sold for scrap (Best 1964, Parker 2001). MAP AND RECORDS SEARCH A search of maps and records was undertaken by the Central Coast Information Center, UCSB, which provides archaeological site data for San Luis Obispo County under agreement with the California Office of Historic Preservation. The records were consulted for all known archaeological sites and previous cultural resource surveys within a 1000 foot radius. Thirteen previous cultural resource surveys have been conducted within that area. No prehistoric archaeological have been recorded in the same area. Two historic sites have been previously recorded in the area. The project area has not been previously been subjected to an archaeological survey, although a Historic Structures Assessment of the JJ's Food Company building at the immediate corner of Branch and Mason Streets was completed by CRMS in 2007 (Hannahs 2007). Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1903 to 1931 show structures previously occupying portions of the subject property. Most of these structures have been demolished, however, because of known previous historic occupation there is a high likelihood of subsurface historic cultural resources being discovered during grading and excavation. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD SURVEY The property was surveyed on foot by Ron Rose and Allison Lober on July 14, 2009. All areas of exposed soil were inspected for the presence of prehistoric and historic artifacts or features. Survey transects were approximately 1-2 meters. The creek bed and banks were heavily vegetated and not examined. Soil visibility was fair to poor due to heavy vegetation, asphalt and concrete covering some surfaces, and the presence of residential and commercial structures (Figures 5,6 and 7). Figure 5: View From Le Point Street To the South Figure 6: View Branch Street To the NW Figure 7: View Branch Street To the North RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The surface investigation resulted in the recovery of numerous samples of Pismo clam shell, abalone shell, ceramics, small animal bone fragments, and glass fragments, as well as the remnants of a concrete, metal and wood stairway. All surface recovery constituted historic materials. The project area is in close proximity to several historic structures and has the potential to contain both prehistoric and historic cultural resources. It is located, therefore, in a sensitive archaeological area. Due to these factors; the fact that portions of the property were historically occupied together with limited soil visibility, it is recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during all ground disturbing activity to include clearance of surface vegetation and debris as well as subsurface earth disturbance. REFERENCES CITED Angel, Myron 1883 Histo y of San Luis Obispo County, California. 1979 Facsimile Edition. Valley Publishers. Fresno. Best, Gerald M. 1964 Ships and Narrow Gage Rails: The Sto y of the Pacific Coast Company, Howell-North, Berkeley, CA. Dart, Louisiana Clayton 1978 Vignettes of Histo y in San Luis Obispo County, Mission Federal Savings, San Luis Obispo, CA. Ditmas, Madge C. 2000 According to Madge, South County Historical Society, Arroyo Grande, CA. Fitzgerald, Richard T. 1998 Archaeological Data Recove y at CA-SLO-1797, the Cross Creek Site, San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Branch, Phase II Project. Submitted to California Department of Water Resources. Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo. Gibson, Robert 0. 1982 Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Master's Thesis, California State University, Hayward. Glassow, M.A. and L.R.Wilcoxon 1988 Coastal Adaptations Near Point Conception, California, with Particular Regard to Shellfish Exploitation. American Antiquity 53(1):36-51. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1972 900 Years of Prehisto y at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper 2, San Luis Obispo. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1978 Obispeiio and Purismeiio Chumash. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Hannahs, Todd 2007 Historic Structure Assessment of JJ's Food Company at 303 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, Califonria [APN: 007-202-0241. Cultural Resource Management Services, Paso Robles, CA. Jones, Terry L. and Georgie Waugh 1995 Central California Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vo1.3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Krieger, Daniel 1988 Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom., San Luis Obispo County, Windsor Publications, Inc., Northridge, CA. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Facsimile edition, California Book Company, 1953. Mikkelsen, Patricia, William Hildebrandt, and Deborah Jones 1998 Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay Estuary: A Report on Excavations at Site Ca-Slo-165, Morro Bay, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Submitted to Caltrans District 5, San Luis Obispo, California. Nicholson, Loren 1980 Rails Across the Ranchos, Valley Publishers, Fresno, CA. Parker and Associates 2001 Cultural Resources Investigation of 520, 522, and 528 East Branch St., Arroyo Grande. APN 007-501-005, 006, and 007. Rivers, Betty 2000 A Line Through the Past, California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper #I, San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society. Robinson, W.W. 1957 The Story of San Luis Obispo County, Title Insurance and Trust Co., San Luis Obispo, CA. EXHIBIT A Records and Literature Search Central Coast Information Center University of California Santa Barbara, California Caltfornta I Archaeological i 1 Department of Anthropology Inventory 1 SAN LUIS OBISPO AND Untverstty of Cai~forn~a, Santa Baibara SANTA BARBARA COIINTIFS Santa Barbara, CA 931063210 (805) 893-2474 FAX (805) 893.8707 .-, ! Emall centralcoast~nfo@gmail corn \ J 71112009 Nancy Farrell Cultural Resource Management Services 829 Paso Robles Street Paso Rohles, CA 9344Ci Dear Ms. Farrell, Enclosed are the results of the record search you requested for the Vlllage Walk Project Our records were searched for all known archaeological sites, h~storic resources, and previous cultural resource surveys withln a 1000 foot radtus of the project area. In this search, zero archaeological sites and 13 previous cultural resource surveys were found, The survey locations were mapped onto portions of the Arroyo Grande & Oceano quads. A brbliography of these surveys is rncluded. A search of the inventories for the State Historic Properly Data Files, National Register of I-listoric Places, Nat~onal Register of Determined El~gible Properties, Cal~fornia Historical Landmarks, Cai~fornia Polnts of Historlc Interest, Californ~a OHP Archaeological Determinations of El~gib~lity, and the Caltrans State and Local Bridge Surveys yielded two property evaluation(s) within the search radlus According to our records, the project area has not been surveyed. Therefore a cultural resource survey IS recommended Please contact me rf you have any questions about this search Sincerely, 4 , PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TOMPKINS HOTEL BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY: GSI SOILS INC. 524 EAST CHAPEL STREET SANT A MARIA, CA 93454 (805) 349-0140 MATERIALS ENGINEERING Array o G1araie I ' Gn~nd•• 5("h(jd MATERIALS TESTING July 28, 2015 PROJECT 12-6322 PREPARED FOR: STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS 569 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 GEOTECHN!CAL ENGINEERING ATTACHMENT C TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................... 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 2 4.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 4 4.1 Seismic Coefficients ............................................................................................ 4 4.2 Liquefaction .......................................................................................................... 4 4.3 Lateral Spreading ................................................................................................. 5 4.4 Slope Stability ...................................................................................................... 5 4.5 Faulting ................................................................................................................. 5 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 6 5.1 Clearing and Stripping ........................................................................................ 6 5.2 Preparation of Building Pads ............................................................................. 7 5.3 Preparation of Paved Areas ................................................................................ 9 5.4 Structural Fill ........................................................................................................ 9 5.5 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 10 5.6 Slab Construction .............................................................................................. 10 5.7 Retaining Walls .................................................................................................. 11 5.8 Pavement Design ............................................................................................... 13 5.9 Underground Facilities Construction .............................................................. 14 5.10 Surface and Subsurface Drainage ................................................................... 15 5.11 Temporary Excavations and Slopes ................................................................ 16 5.12 Percolation Testing ............................................................................................ 17 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS .................................................... 17 FIGURES Site Location Map Site Plan Hillside Grading APPENDIX A Soil Classification Chart Logs of Exploratory Borings APPENDIX B Moisture-Density Tests Direct Shear Test R-Value Expansion Index Tests PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TOMPKINS HOTEL BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 12-6322 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed Hotel facility to be located on Branch Street in the Village of Arroyo Grande, California. A site location map is presented in Figure 1. This report incorporates geotechnical information from the GSI Soils Inc (GSI) Geotechnical Investigation (dated August 28, 2012, Project 12-6322) and a Soils Engineering Report by GeoSolutions prepared for portions of the property in 2008 (Project No SLO 6787-1 dated October 15, 2008). Soil borings B-1 through B-3 & P-1 from the GS/ report and borings B-3 and B-4 from the GeoSolutions report are included on the site map and in Appendix B of this report. The project site is bounded by Branch Street to the south, North Mason Street to the west, Tally- Ho Creek to the east and Le Point Street to the north. In general, the site is slightly to moderately sloping to the south and east with existing elevations varying from approximately 140 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near Le Point Street to 113 feet above MSL near Branch Street. At the time of our field investigation the building areas were covered with native grasses, weeds and bushes with a few trees along Tally-Ho Creek. The hotel facility will include two structures and associated parking and driveway areas. It is our understanding that the buildings will be wood or metal framed structures with concrete slab-on- grade floors. Footing loads for the structures are presently unavailable. For the purpose of this report, maximum loads on the order of 25 kips (columns) and 1.5 kip per lineal foot (continuous) have been estimated. The project description is based on a site reconnaissance performed by a GSI Soils, Inc. engineer, and information provided by Michael Dammeyer of Steven Puglisi Architects. The plan provided forms the basis for the "Site Plan", Figure 2. This report is preliminary and further borings will be required to full assess the subsurface conditions at the property. Supplemental exploratory and percolation borings would be located July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 in building and surface disposal areas. In addition, if there are changes in the nature of design or of improvements, or if the assumed loads are not consistent with actual design loads, additional recommendations would be required. Evaluations of the soils for hydrocarbons or other chemical properties are beyond the scope of the investigation. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to review available exploratory borings for the site and to develop geotechnical information and preliminary design criteria for the proposed hotel. The scope of this study included the following items. 1. A review of available geotechnical and geologic information for this area of Arroyo Grande. 2. A site reconnaissance and review of previous exploratory borings by GSI Soils and GeoSolutions to formulate a description of the subsurface conditions. 3. Review of available laboratory testing data program performed on soil samples collected from the soil borings. 4. Engineering analysis of the data gathered during the field explorations, laboratory testing, and literature review. Development of preliminary recommendations for site preparation and grading, and geotechnical design criteria for foundations, slab-on-grade construction, retaining walls, pavement design and underground facilities. 5. Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The near surface soils encountered in GSI borings B-1 and B-2 generally consisted of sandy clays to a depth of 5 feet. These clays were encountered in a moist state and in a firm to stiff condition. On the east side of the property (GSI borings B-3 & P-1) silty sand soils in a loose to medium dense condition were encountered to a depth of 5 feet. The silty sand deposits are 2 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 likely related to the close proximity of Tally-Ho Creek. Below the near surface soils, silty clays were encountered to the termination of the deepest GSI boring at 40 feet. Generally, these materials were found in a moist to saturated state and in a stiff condition. Groundwater was found in these materials at a depth of 21 feet below existing grades. Laboratory testing indicates that the surface silty clays have low to moderate potential for expansivity. The borings (B-3GS & B-4GS) drilled by GeoSolutions in 2008 were located to the north of the GSI borings. These borings indicate that approximately 1 foot of topsoil over sandy clays soils were found in boring B-3GS and over sandstone bedrock in boring B-4GS. Sandstone bedrock was also encountered in boring B-3GS at 9 feet to termination of the boring at a depth of 15 feet. Sandstone and hard sandy clays were found in boring B-4 to a depth of 39 feet. Free ground water was encountered at a depth of 21 feet in Boring B-2 during the GSI field exploration in 2012 and at 26 feet in boring B-3GS during GeoSolutions field exploration in 2008. Based on the subsurface moisture conditions, this water level could rise to 15 feet below existing grade or shallower. High moisture contents can also occur in the upper 3 to 5 feet in wet winter months particularly adjacent to Tally-Ho Creek. A more detailed description of the soils encountered is presented graphically on the GSI "Exploratory Boring Logs", B-1 through B-3, & P-1 and GeoSolutions borings B-3GS & B-4GS, Appendix A. An explanation of the symbols and descriptions used on these logs are presented on the "Soil Classification Chart". The soil profile described above is generalized; therefore, the reader is advised to consult the boring logs (Appendix A) for soil conditions at specific locations. Care should be exercised in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond borings. On the boring logs the soil type, moisture content, grain size, dry density, and the applicable Unified Soil Classification System Symbol are indicated. The locations of the GSI exploratory borings and GeoSolutions borings, shown on Site Plan, Figure 2, were approximately determined from features at the site. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants. Surface elevations at boring locations were not determined. 3 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 4.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Seismic Coefficients Structures should be designed to resist the lateral forces generated by earthquake shaking in accordance with the building code and local design practice. This section presents seismic design parameters for use with the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-05. The site coordinates and the USGS interactive web page were used to obtain the seismic design criteria. The peak ground acceleration was estimated for a 2 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years using the USGS online deaggregation tool. Seismic Data I California Building Code (2013)Seismic Parameter Values for I Site Class D Latitude, degrees 35.125365 Longitude, degrees -120.576292 ·- Ss, Seismic Factor, Site Class Bat 0.2 sec 1.305 8 1 Seismic Factor, Site Class Bat 1 sec 0.481 Site Class Sd, Stiff Soll ---~ SMs, Site Specific Response Parameter 1.305 for Site Class at 0.2 sec SMi. Site Specific Response Parameter 0.731 for Site Class D at 1 sec Sos = 2/3 SMs1 0.870 801= 2/3 SM1 0.487 1 Rick category 11111111 Peak Ground Acceleration 0.46 ' (2% probability in 50 years) Likely Magnitude (M) 6.8 ... 4.2 Liquefaction Analysis Liquefaction is described as the sudden loss of soil shear strength due to a rapid increase of pore water pressures caused by cyclic loading from a seismic event. In simple terms it means that the soil acts more like a fluid than a solid in a liquefiable event. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following are generally needed; granular soils (sand, silty sand and sandy silt), groundwater and low density (very loose to medium dense) conditions. A liquefaction study was not part of our scope for this project, however an opinion can be provided based on 4 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 the results of the soil borings and our experience in this area of Arroyo Grande. Generally, clay soils and sandstone materials were encountered below a depth of 1 to 5 feet to termination of the deepest boring at 40 feet below grade. Although groundwater was encountered at 21 feet to 26 feet, the stiff condition and high fines content of the clay soils and the dense to very dense condition of the sandstone indicates that the potential for liquefaction at the site would be low to negligible. 4.3 Lateral Spreading An estimate of lateral spread displacement to occur at the site was made using equations developed by Youd, Hansen and Bartlett (Reference 1 ). The parameters used in the equation included data from the Los Osos Fault (M=6.8), an average fines content and a mean grain size. The result of this preliminary analysis indicates lateral displacements should be minimal. This is primarily due to the stiff clayey soils and bedrock materials present and the lack of liquefiable soil zones. 4.4 Slope Stability The building pad areas are located in slightly sloping to sloping terrain with gradients to the in the range of 10:1 to 3:1 (horizontal:vertical). There was no visual evidence of overall instability at the site, although shallow instability could occur above the bedrock, if over-saturated conditions were to occur. However, the potential for movement to influence the proposed construction would be low to negligible. 4.5 Faulting There are no active or potentially active faults in the direct vicinity of the proposed hotel. The nearest known active fault (Los Osos Fault) is 7.5 Km to the northwest of the site. The site is not within a State of California Fault Hazards Zone (Alquist-Priolo). It is our opinion that there is a low to negligible potential for fault rupture to impact the proposed hotel structure based on review of the published maps 5 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The site is suitable for the proposed hotel provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. As indicated previously, this report is preliminary and additional exploratory borings will be required. Based on these borings updated recommendations would be provided, where applicable. 2. All grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by GSI Soils Inc,, hereinafter described as the Geotechnical Engineer, prior to contract bidding. This review should be performed to determine whether the recommendations contained within this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. 3. The Geotechnical Engineer should be notified at least two (2) working days before site clearing or grading operations commence, and should be present to observe the stripping of deleterious material and provide consultation to the Grading Contractor in the field. 4. Field observation and testing during the grading operations should be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer so that a decision can be formed regarding the adequacy of the site preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, and the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the project geotechnical specifications. Any work related to grading performed without the full knowledge of, and under direct observation of the Geotechnical Engineer, may render the recommendations of this report invalid. 5. 1 Clearing and Stripping 1. All surface and subsurface deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building and pavement areas and disposed of off-site. This includes, but is not limited to any buried utility lines, loose fills, septic systems, debris, building materials, and any other surface and subsurface structures within proposed building areas. Voids left from site clearing, should be cleaned and backfilled as recommended for structural fill. 6 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 2. Once the site has been cleared, the exposed ground surface should be stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic soiL The surface may be disced, rather than stripped, if the organic content of the soil is not more than three percent by weight If stripping is required, depths should be determined by a member of our staff in the field at the time of stripping. Strippings may be either disposed of off-site or stockpiled for future use in landscape areas if approved by the landscape architect 5.2 Preparation of Building Pads 1. The intent of these recommendations is to support the hotel on uniformly compacted non-expansive soils. Due to the variability and expansivity of the near surface soils, a select non-expansive soil will be required to cap the building pad areas. 2. In general, after clearing and stripping the site soils should be further excavated to a depth of four (4) feet below lowest existing grades or finish pad grade or two (2) feet below the bottom of the deepest footing, whichever is deeper. In addition, excavation of the cut side of the pad area should not be less than one-half the greatest fill in the building pad area. After approval of the excavation bottom by the geotechnical engineer, the exposed surface should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, wetted to above optimum moisture (-1% to 3% above) and compacted to at least ninety (90) percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D1557- 02). Approved native silty sands, processed bedrock or low expansive sandy clay soils (excavated during grading) can be used below the non-expansive cap and similarly compacted. The upper 36 inches of the pad areas should consist of compacted (to 90%) select import material such as decomposed granite or Class 11/111 Base. The lateral limits of overexcavation, scarification and fill placement should be at least five (5) feet beyond the perimeter building and footing lines. Due to the site gradients, keyways and benching will be required. Keys and benches should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, with a minimum 2 percent gradient back into the slope. The need for subdrain or backdrain systems should be evaluated by a representative of GSI Soils during grading. Figure 3 presents details for hillside construction. Due to the variability of the underlying materials 7 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 site excavation should be closely monitored by the geotechnical engineer. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be constructed at a maximum slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 3. If loose or unstable soils are encountered at the bottom of the excavations, these areas should be excavated a further 18 inches and a layer of stabilization fabric (Mirafi HP370 or equivalent) and Class 11/111 Base placed prior to placing fill. The base should be compacted to 90% of ASTM 01557-02. 4. In order to help minimize potential settlement problems associated wtth structures supported on a non-uniform thickness of compacted fill, the soils engineer should be consulted for specific site recommendations during grading. In general, all proposed construction should be supported by a uniform thickness of compacted soil. 5. The above grading is based on the strength characteristics of the materials under conditions of normal moisture that would result from rain water and do not take into consideration the additional activating forces applied by seepage from springs or subsurface water. Areas of observed seepage should be provided with subsurface drains to release the hydrostatic pressures. 6. The near-surface soils may become partially or completely saturated during the rainy season. Grading operations during this time period may be difficult since the saturated materials may not be compactable and they may not support construction equipment. Consideration should be given to the seasonal limit of the grading operations on the site. 7. All final grades should be provided with a positive drainage gradient away from foundations. Final grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Ponding of water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. 8 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 5.3 Preparation of Paved Areas 1. Pavement areas should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches below existing grade or finished subgrade. The soil should then be wetted to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. 2. The upper 12 inches of subgrade beneath all paved areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Subgrade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between the time of water conditioning and compaction, and the time of placement of the pavement structural section. 5.4 Structural Fill 1. On-site silty sands, processed bedrock and low expansivity sandy clays free of organic and deleterious material are suitable for use below the select non- expansive cap and in landscape areas. This fill should not contain rocks larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, and should have no more than 15 percent larger than 1.0 inch in greatest dimension. 2. Select import (decomposed granite and Class 11/111 Base) should be free of organic and other deleterious material and should have very low expansion potential, with a plasticity index of 10 or less and a sand equivalent of at least 30. Before delivery to the site, a sample of the proposed import should be tested in our laboratory to determine its suitability for use as structural fill. 3. Structural fill using on-site inorganic soil or approved import should be placed in layers, each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness before compaction. On-site inorganic or imported soil should be conditioned with water, or allowed to dry, to produce a soil water content at approximately optimum value, and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM 01557-02. 9 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 5.5 Foundations 1. Conventional continuous footings and spread footings may be used for support of the proposed hotel. All of the foundation materials should be competent after preparation in accordance with the grading section of this report. 2. Perimeter footings should be at least 15 inches wide and extend a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade or below adjacent finished grade, whichever is lower. Isolated spread footings should be a minimum of 2 feet square and tied to the perimeter footings with grade beams (minimum 15" wide by 24" deep). The reinforcement for the footings and grade beams should be designed by the structural engineer; however, a minimum of two (2) No. 5 rebar should be provided top and bottom for continuous footings with dowels (#3@18" o.c.) to tie the slab{s) to the footings. A setback distance of 10 feet should also be maintained from the front edge of the footings to the competent face of slopes. 3. An allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1800 psf may be used. Total settlements of less than 1-inch are anticipated for the assumed building loads and differential settlements should be 50 percent of this value. 4. The above allowable pressures are for support of dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind and seismic loads. 5. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings and/or friction between the soil and the bottom of the footing. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.35 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of the spread footings in engineered fill. A passive resistance of 350 pct equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings. If friction and passive pressures are combined, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. 5.6 Slab Construction 1. Concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared loose fill materials. Preparation of subgrade to receive concrete 10 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 slabs-on-grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this report. 2. To minimize floor dampness a section of capillary break material at least 6 inches thick and covered with a 15-mil Stego type barrier should be provided between slabs-on-grade and compacted soil subgrade. The capillary break should be a clean free-draining material such as clean gravel or permeable aggregate complying with Caltrans Standard Specifications 68, Class I, Type A or Type B, to service as a cushion and a capillary break. Clean gravel should have less than 3% passing the No. 200 sieve. All seams through the vapor barrier should be overlapped and sealed. Where pipes extend through the vapor barrier, the barrier should be sealed to the pipes. Tears or punctures in the moisture barrier should be completely repaired. It is suggested that a 2-inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. 3. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on-center both ways at or slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches, and hot bars should be cooled prior to placing concrete. The aforementioned reinforcement may be used for anticipated uniform floor loads not exceeding 100 psf. If floor loads greater than 100 psi are anticipated, the slab should be evaluated by a structural engineer 4. All slabs should be poured at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. For design of concrete floors, a modulus of subgrade reaction of k = 100 psi per inch would be applicable to on-site engineered fill soils. 5. 7 Retaining Walls 1. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures from adjacent soils and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. 11 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 --------- Lateral Pressure and Condition Equivalent Fluid Pressure, ocf (Compacted Fill) Unrestrained Rigidly Supported Wall Wall Active Case, Level-native soils 50 -- Drained Level-aranular backfill 30 -- At-Rest Case, Level-native soils --70 Drained Level-sand backfill 50 Passive Case, Level 325 -- Drained 2:1 Sloping Down 200 For sloping backfill add 1 pcf for every 2 deg. (Active case) and 1.5 pcf for every 2 deg. {At-rest case) 2. Isolated retaining wall foundations should extend a minimum depth of 27 inches below lowest adjacent grade. An allowable toe pressure of 2,000 psi is recommended for compacted soil (90%). A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used between subgrade soil and concrete footings. 3. For retaining walls greater than 6 feet, as measured from the top of the foundation, a seismic horizontal surcharge of 1 OH 2 (pounds per linear foot of wall) may be assumed to act on retaining walls. The surcharge will act at a height of 0.33H above the wall base (where H is the height of the wall in feet). This surcharge force shall be added to an active design equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per square foot of depth for the seismic condition. 4. In addition to the lateral soil pressure given above, retaining walls should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles are required to operate within 10 feet of a wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account through design. 5. The above-recommended pressures are based on the assumption that sufficient subsurface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a filter material be 12 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of filter material should be a minimum of 18 inches thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to within 12 inches of the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of water conditioned, compacted native soil. A 4-inch diameter drain pipe should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drain pipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material. Adequate gradients should be provided to discharge water that collects behind the retaining wall to a sump (basement areas) or adequately controlled discharge system with suitably projected outlets. The filter material should conform to Class I, Type B permeable material as specified in Section 68 of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications, current edition. 6. For hydrostatic loading conditions (i.e. no free drainage behind walls), an additional loading of 45 pcf equivalent fiuid weight should be added to the above soil pressures. If it is necessary to design retaining structures for submerged conditions, allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50 percent. In addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. 7. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used immediately adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of, the walls. Rubber water-stops and impermeable barriers (Paraseal or equivalent) should be installed for all basement construction and for building walls which retain earth. 5.8 Pavement Design 1. The following table provides recommended pavement sections based on an estimated R-Value of 12 for the near surface sandy clay soils encountered at the site. 13 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 ... . RECOMMENDED MINIMUM ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS DESIGN THICKNESS H A.C.·in. A.B.-in. 4.5 2.5 8.5 5.0 2.5 mo 55 3.0 10.5 6.0 3.0 no T.I.= Traffic Index A.C. = Asphaltic Concrete -must meet specifications for Caltrans Type B Asphalt Concrete A.B.= Aggregate Base" must meet specifications for Caltrans Class II Aggregate Base (R-Value = minimum 78) 2. All asphalt pavement construction and materials used should conform with Sections 26 and 39 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications, State of California, Department of Transportation. Aggregate bases and sub-bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on ASTM D1557-02. 3. R-value samples should be obtained and tested at the completion of rough grading and the pavement sections confirmed or revised. All sections should be crowned for good drainage. 5.9 Underground Facilities Construction 1. The attention of contractors, particularly the underground contractors, should be drawn to the State of California Construction Safety Orders for "Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork". Trenches or excavations greater than 5 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back in accordance with OSHA Regulations prior to entry. 2. For purposes of this section of the report, bedding is defined as material placed in a trench up to 1 foot above a utility pipe and backfill is all material placed in the trench above the bedding. Unless concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, free-draining sand should be used as bedding. Sand proposed for use as bedding should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability and to measure 14 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 its compaction characteristics. Sand bedding should be compacted by mechanical means to achieve at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test 01557-02. 3. On-site inorganic soil, or approved import, may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be conditioned with water (or allowed to dry), to produce a soil water content of about 2 to 3 percent above the optimum value and placed in horizontal layers each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test 01557-02. The top lift of trench backfill under vehicle pavements should be compacted to the requirements given in report section 5.3 for vehicle pavement subgrades. Trench walls must be kept moist prior to and during backfill placement. 5.10 Surface and Subsurface Drainage 1. Concentrated surface water runoff within or immediately adjacent to the site should be conveyed in pipes or in lined channels to discharge areas that are relatively level or that are adequately protected against erosion. 2. Water from roof downspouts should be conveyed in pipes that discharge in areas a safe distance away from structures. Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and promote drainage of surface water away from building foundations, edges of pavements and sidewalks. For soil areas we recommend that a minimum of five (5) percent gradient be maintained. 3. Careful attention should be paid to erosion protection of soil surfaces adjacent to the edges of roads, curbs and sidewalks, and in other areas where "hard" edges of structures may cause concentrated flow of surface water runoff. Erosion resistant matting such as Miramat, or other similar products, may be considered for lining drainage channels. 15 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 4. As indicated previously the potential therefore exists for perched water during the rainy season between the surface soils and the bedrock. Areas of seepage will be required a subdrain to intercept its movement 5. Maintenance of slopes is important to their long term performance. Precautions that can be taken include planting with appropriate drought-resistant vegetation as recommended by a landscape architect, and not over-irrigating, a primary source of surficial failures. a. Where possible compacted materials utilized in the construction of the fill slopes should comprise at least 20 percent fine grained (passing #200 sieve) soils in a zone equal to the slope height b. Hydroseeding or planting a surface cover of protective vegetation on all slope surfaces. In addition, an erosion control blanket (Greenfix CFS072R or equivalent) should be placed over the slopes to protect the vegetation while it becomes established. c. In addition, water should not be allowed to run freely over the sides of the slopes. 5. 11 Temporary Excavations and Slopes 1. Conventional earth moving equipment should be adequate to excavate the soils at the site. 2. We recommend that temporary excavations greater than 5 feet deep be sloped at an inclination of 1: 1 (horizontal:vertical). However, during the rainy season, or where soft or loose sediments, or perched water conditions are found, slopes of 1-1/2:1 to 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or less are more likely. 3. It should be noted that it is the Contractor's responsibility to maintain safe cut slopes based on actual field conditions and according to OSHA requirements. The slopes presented are those we expect will be used in project design and we 16 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 have assumed that in general the slopes will not be open for more than 2 to 3 days. In some geologic units, perched water may be present locally. The stability of the slopes may be compromised somewhat where these conditions exist due to softening or piping of the saturated materials. 4. Where the temporary trench slopes are inclined as described above, no shoring is required. However, where adjacent features may influence establishment of appropriate slopes, the Contractor may elect to use shoring. In no case should personnel enter trenches with vertical sidewalls greater than 5 feet deep without proper shoring. Design and installation of the shoring should be the responsibility of the Contractor and should be performed according to OSHA requirements. 5.12 Percolation Study 1. A percolation boring was drilled to assess the absorption rates of the underlying soil at a depth of 8 feet below grade in the vicinity of the proposed basin. Silty sands were encountered at the location drilled. The percolation tests were conducted in general conformance with U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Manual of Septic Tank Practice Guidelines. The results are summarized in the following table. Test No. Depth (feet) Soil Percolation Rate Descrintion P-1 8 Silty Sand (SM-SC) 17 min/in 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that additional boring will be drilled at the site and that updated recommendations will be provided, where applicable. In addition, should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during grading of the site, GSI Soils Inc. will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and preliminary 17 July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/her representative is responsible for ensuring that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, changes in the conditions of a property can occur whether they be due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Legislation or the broadening of knowledge may result in changes in applicable standards. Changes outside of our control may find this report to be invalid, wholly or partially. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two (2) years without our review nor is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. 4. Validity of the recommendations contained in this report and future reports is also dependent upon the prescribed testing and observation program during the site preparation and construction phases. Our firm assumes no responsibility for construction compliance with these design concepts and recommendations unless we have been retained to perform continuous on-site testing and review during all phases of site preparation, grading, and foundation/slab construction. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (805) 349-0140. Sincerely, GSI SOILS, INC. Rick Armero Project Manager 18 Ronald J. Church GE #2184 FIGURES SITE MAP TOMPKINS HOTEL BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA Project No. Figure No. 12-6322 1 LE POINT STREET ~ B~1 thru B-3 & P-1 Boring Locations GSI 2012 • B-3GS & B-4GS, Boring Locations GeoSo!utions 2008 I I J I ,..' ! I f1'1 ( BRANCH SITE PLAN TOMPKINS HOTEL BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA Project No. Figure No. 12-6322 2 ------ --- GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS CUT LOT --------------- --Topsoil, Colluvium and Highly Weathered Bedrock -- Unweathered Bedrock or Competent soil CUT/FILL LOT TRANSITION Original ---- -~~ll!ld --- Overexcavate and Regrade Original Ground --· ------------= ------------------~ 4' or 1/2 max. fill depth, whichever is greater --,,,,.-f-o -------COMPACTED FILL Remove Top soil, Undocumented fill and Colluvium ---c;; keyway extending 4 feet below lowest grade and at least 2 feet into competent materials Keyway Drain, Mira drain 6000 with 4" PVC drain pipe, perforations down; drainrock (3 cu ft/ft) in Mirafi 140n Bench Drain (if required), 4" PVC; Perforations down; drainrock {3 cu ft/ft) in Mirafi 140n Overexcavate and Regrade with Select Import When native slopes exceed 10°/o benching is required. A keyway is required when slopes exceed 20%, minimum width and height of keyways and benches is 10 feet & 4 feet respectively. Project No. Figure No. HILLSIDE LOTS 12-6322 3 APPENDIX A Field Investigation Key to Boring Logs Boring Logs July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 FIELD INVESTIGATION Test Hole Drilling The GS! field investigation was conducted on August 13, 2012. Three (3) exploratory borings were drilled at the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The GeoSolutions field investigation was performed on August 28 and September 2, 2008. Four (4) exploratory borings were drilled at the site, two of which (B-3GS & B-4GS) are included in this report and on Figure 2. The locations of these borings were approximated based on the information provided. Undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained at various depths during test hole drilling. The und'1sturbed samples were obtained by driving a 2.4-inch inside diameter sampler into soils. Bulk samples were also obtained during drilling. Logs of Boring A continuous log of soils, as encountered in the borings was recorded at the time of the field investigations. The Exploration Boring Logs are attached. Locations and depth of sampling, in-situ soil dry densities and moisture contents are tabulated in the Boring Logs. PLASTICITY CHART I USED FOR CLASSIFICATION OF FINE GRAINED SOILS I ·--· -c1=::t:=;!'-;;MIL & Ol .. "...l_________i__l__ --_, __ .,; ___ ~-~~-_]___ 100 120 LIQUIDUMIT 6" 3" 3/4" 10 40 200 ,-- 1 COBBLES ---~-----"'"------~ . GRAVEL ' SAND l I AV I J COARSE I · FINdcoARSE] MEDIUM j_~_1N_E~_8_"_T_l ... ~.~ SOIL GRAIN SIZE BOULDERS 160 75 19 4.75 SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE DRIVING RECORD DESCRIPTION BLOWS PER FOOT 25 25 BLOWS DROVE SAMPLER 12 INCHES, AFTER INITIAL 6 INCHES OF SEA TiNG 2.0 0-425 _____ .., __ ,,,,_,~··-------- 5017" 50 BLOWS DROVE SAMPLER 7 INCHES, AFTER INITlAL _6_1N_CcH_Ec"S_O_F_SEA_T_IN_G _______ _ Ref/3" 50 BLOWS DROVE SAMPLER 3 INCHES DURING OR AFTER INITIAL 6 INCHES OF SEATING ________________ " ________ _ 0.075 0.002 NOTE: TO AVOID DAMAGE TO SAMPLING TOOLS, DRIVING IS LIMITED TO 50 BLOWS PER 6 INCHES DURING OR AFTER SEATING INTERVAL I [[! --Bag sample KEY TO TEST DATA CONS I [[] Drive, No Sample Collected [2J 2 1/2" 0 D Mod Cal1forn1a Sampler, Not Tested OS pp GSD CP El LL Pl I 0 [.:4il 2 1/2" O.D. Mod. California Sampler, Tested Standard Penetration Test I [QJ Sample Attempted with No Recovery ~ Water Level at Time of Drilling t '!'.' Water Level after Drilling ------ RELATIVE DENSITY Consolidation {ASTM 02435) Cons. Drained Direct Shear (ASTM D3080) Pocket Penetrometer Grain Size Distribution (ASTM 0422) Compaction Test (ASTM D1557) Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) Liquid Limit (in percent) Plasticity Index RELATJVE DENSITY lsA'N-OcSc,cGcRcAcVcEcLcS-, AcN=D NON _"________ ' ,-~ l L PLASTIC SIL TS scows1FO<Y1__1 [-CLAY~ AND PLASTIC srn; _ STRENGTH scow."F0."1:_---j 1 1.1 -~~: ~t 1 I ·~~" I ::: I ,::, I VERY DENSE OVER 50 I I Vf:RY STIFF 2 4 16 32 I ._l ________ .-~.. HARD _____ L OVER4 _ _l_ OVER32 J I f------------··-·--[ _ _"ROJECT NO ~2 I SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART I f.-DATE [)f<ILLED .. 8/13/2012 i AND_ BORING LOG LEGEND I I L _____ . .,. I TOMPKINS HOTEL '[FIGURE NO .. __ .. _ .. _-.& ____ __j_ ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA . A-1 I LOGGED BY: MM DRILL RIG: Simco 2400 BORING NO. B-1 -· . . .. ELEVATION: 116' BORING DIAMETER (INCH) 6 DATE DRILLED: 13 August 2012 ·~""" ---~--· --·-~··------ GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT) F <!) I x ~~ I s >-C: 0 i l1J z ~ ;.. w z F ~ GEOTECHNICAL a. ;.. => u; " 0 COMMENTS AND 0 s 0 >-n.o ;.. z ::; ~ f= DESCRIPTION ,. w "'0 z 00 ADDITIONAL TESTS I <rw w " "" I ~ >s O~ 0 oz t;: a. -' a. w;.. 5 u; w w <( 6 " Zo ;.. z ,. ~ <( oo: ~ w D'. <( o~ ~8 o:O a ~ z;.. w 0 " (/) "' o ro as ::; a. => "' % Sandy Clay: dark brown, moist, trace silt, CL 115 1 . :;/; some gravel, firm v :;/; 'f 'B IEI = 46 114 :;/; f- 113 3 }//; w mottling, stiff I.iii 12 14.3 99.8 112 4 :;/; y/;:: 111 ·r .. :;/; Silty Clay: dark brown, moist, trace to some CL 110 6 :;/; sand, stiff :;/; 109 7 :;/; ff' ,@ 'B 108 y/;:: f-1 107 'f I :;/; 106 10 :;/; Ill :;/; very stiff 16 23.4 105 :;/; I 11 .W I 12 :;/; 104 @ I 103 "r :;/; I 102 14 :;/; :;/; 101 15 :;/; II f very moist 18 33-2 100 16 :;/; :;/; 99 11f :;/; 98 18 :;/; :;/; 97 ~ 19·@ - B 30.6 20 r/;:: - 96 Boring terminated at 20 feet EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS PROPOSED METAL BUILDING BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE ~ PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE NO. 12-6322 August-12 A-2 LOGGED BY: MM DRILL RIG: Simco 2400 BORING NO.· B-2 ----~-·---- ELEVATION' 115' BORING DIAMETER (INCH) 6 DATE DRILLED: 13 August 2012 ~· ·-·----~ - GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT) F I ~ Ix rL " '" "" w :> "" 0 '#. f-t:: I~ a.:;: z F ~ GEOTECHNICAL Q_ >-:o ;:: (i) COMMENTS AND 0 "" 0 >-"-0 ~·~ >' r f= 5' DESCRIPTION r-w '"0 o:'.m 1 m ~ f-' 00 ADDITIONAL TESTS " I a'. :> s 0 oz r "" --' wr-10~ 5 " w w "" ~ 0 " z 0 f-Z ru. "' ""' ~ w "' "' o~ ~8'25~ a ~ Zr w 0 " U) '" o ro :J "" " '" ;//, Sandy Clay: dark brown, molst, trace silt, CL 114 1 -w some gravel, firm '//; ~ f B 17.2 113 2 '//; ~ 112 3 JI/ w 111 4 '//; I f 110 5 '//; 11' '//; stiff 9 19.7 109 6 r '//; 108 7 ]"ffi w ~ 8 '//; B 26.2 107 ~ f I 108 9 '//; '//; Silty Clay: dark brown, moist, trace to some CL I 105 10 0:1, sand, stiff 11[ :w 14 25.4 104 '//; 11 0:1, I 103 12 -~ '//; \ 102 13 f I '//; 101 '//; 14f 100 15 '//; II f very stiff, yellowish brown 22 30.1 99 16 '//; '//; 98 17 -'//; r 97 '//; 18 0:1, 96 19 -'//; ~ ,// very moist B 34.7 ~ 95 20 -'//; '//; EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS PROPOSED METAL BUILDING BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE NO. 12-6322 August-12 A-3 LOGGED BY MM DRILL RIG Simco 2400 BORING NO.: B-2 (CONT.) --·- ELEVATION 115' BORING DIAMETER (INCH) 6 DATE DRILLED: 13 August 2012 ·---"'~ --.. --------- GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT) 21.0 >" G:' (') x w "" r-~ n. 0 w z c r-w o.:;: z >" ~ GEOTECHNICAL a. r-=> " " 0 COMMENTS AND 0 "" 0 >-n. 0 r-z :::; ;;: "r->' 'i' DESCRIPTION f-w Wo O'. iii w ;C 0(') ADDITIONAL TESTS " I ~ >s "-0 oz r-n. _, n. wr-5 " w w n. <{ 0 " Zo r-z ~~ <{ 00'. ~ w 0: <{ o~ ~8 "'" a ~ Zr-w 0 " (/) w u ro o"o :::; n. "w -;//; Silty Clay: yellowish brown, very moist to CL n 21 94 21~ saturated, trace sand, stiff ............... ·······················································-··· ··························· ····-···· saturated ~ 22 01' 8 32.2 93 w ~ 92 23 . 01' w 91 24 //: f 90 25 //: //: 89 26f //: 88 //: 27f ~ 28 //: 8 34.5 87 //: ~ 86 29~ //: 85 30f I //: 84 31 //: Y/j; I 83 32 -//: //: I 82 33 -//: I ~ //: 8 33.8 //: ~ 81 34 -//: 80 //: 35r I 79 36 //: //: 78 37 //: ~ I 38 //: 77 r I 39 //: I 'B 76 f-01' I 75 40-F Boring terminated at 40 feet EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS PROPOSED METAL BUILDING BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE NO. 12-6322 August-12 A-4 LOGGED BY MM DRILL RIG Simco 2400 BORING NO 8-3 ELEVATION 114' BORING DIAMETER (INCH) 6 DATE DRILLED 13 August 2012 -----------------------------· § t;: 0 ~ w 0 I Q_ ~ G GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT): GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LU ~ --' 0 (f) e- "'m we-e-z ~8 COMMENTS AND ADDITIONAL TESTS f-----11111,_. S-il-ty_S_a_n-d:-g-ra-y-is_h_b_ro_w_n_, -m-o-ist-, -tr-ac-e-to--+-S-M-+-t--+--t--.,_-+--+---+--------< 113 112 111 .llff some clay, some gravel, loose 1 lrm 2 -11111 !1111 3 Jlll1: j 11 LI: medium dense 4 11111 I 11f 12 5 )IH_·r------------+---1 110 109 108 107 106 105 ~ Silty Clay: dark brown, moist, trace to some _J/,0 sand, stiff e Y-0,: -;:!,/; 7 -w, 8 _Yi Yi 9 -::0 ~ increasing clay 104 10 ·--~ y,::/ 103 11 .... 0/, 0/, 102 12 ~'./; Yi ::0 101 13 }";'./; 100 14 y ;'./; 0:1; very stiff, very moist 99 98 97 96 15 V;'.1; -:w 16-~ 11{r Yi 18 _,,;;; Yi CL- SC I Iii 12 "[ 16 19 _Yi 20 . ~f------------+---1111 24 Boring terminated at 20 feet ! I 94 95 12-7 14.8 18.4 34.7 35.6 EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS [El= 12 PROPOSED METAL BUILDING BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE PROJECT NO. 12-6322 DATE August-12 FIGURE NO. A-5 LOGGED BY: MM DRILL RIG: Simco 2400 BORING NO: P-1 .. . ELEVATION: 113' BORING DIAMETER (INCH): 6 DATE DRILLED: 13 August 2012 .. ·-___ .., __ GROUNDWATER DEPTH (FT) e:-I " I u:- x "' s f-I: Q_ [~ w z c f-w a.:;: z e:-GEOTECHNICAL [L f-=> '" " 0 COMMENTS AND 0 s i'= Q_ 0 f-z :J ~ " f-" DESCRIPTION w "'u "' iii 00 ADDITIONAL TESTS I ~ w !--' "' f--' Q_ >s w f-O~ 0 '" oz s w w Q_ ' <: 0 " Zo f-z >-~ <: u"' ~ w "' <: o~ ~8 crU a ~ z f-w 0 " (f) "' u ro oS :J Q_ => "' 1111' Silty Sand: grayish brown, moist, trace to SM I 112 1 f" some clay, some grave!, loose _I 1111 lllJ 8 7.4 111 2 1111 f- 110 3 : 1111: ~lllf medium dense 109 4 1111 1111 108 11111 5 llH : increasing clay 107 6 jllff -11u -j lllJ: B 13.4 106 7 Ill I - 105 8 !Ill ~ Boring terminated at 8 feet 104 9 103 10 ~ 102 :: 101 100 13 j 99 14 j 98 151 97 16 96 17 ~ 95 18 94 19 ~ 93 20 ~ EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS PROPOSED METAL BUILDING BRANCH STREET, ARROYO GRANDE PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE NO. 12-6322 August-12 A-6 GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LOG 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT: 303 E. Branch Street DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan DATE DIULLED: Septembe1· 2, 2008 LOGGED BY: BB ~ Depth of Ground\vater: 26.0 Feet ~ s Cl SOIL DESCRIPTION B cg 0 --· ----~--------\Si-- TOPSOlL: brown, dry _ 1 Sl\1 -I· SANDSTONE: light brown to light yellowish brown, dry, Pismo Formation -3 A -very dense -5 -6 -7 -8-- ~9-·-very dense ~10- -12 ~ .... ::: _: ~ANDS10NE ;~ht olive grny, ""theccd Pismo --1 : : 1 I '""" " O ""' "'"'" oey ' " -11 I :I -18- -19 -20 -21 -22 SANDSTONE: !igJ;t olive gray, wcf1thered Pis;n~­ Forrnation, w/ very dark brown rock (Gray \Vnckey), very moist, very dense I " " 0 Ci "' h ::i . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x x x x BORING NO. B-3 JOB NO. SL06787-1 DRlLLING INFORMATION DIULL RlG: CME SS HOLE DIAMETER: 8.0 Inches SAMPLING METHOD: SPT HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded Boring Tenninated At: 40.0 Feet Page 3 ofS <4 "' c! K !'! " B 3; ~g "' !§ ~ u Cl 'fl "! ~£ ~o 20 "' ~ ~ ,....., z j (: 8 '" ?~ '>' Q 0 ~ 8 !;} ii! ~ ~ {::; 0 [{j 13 2 k~ !;} :;! a u t ~ Ji ._, (S M .g "' 68 52 "' "' "'~ 8 • Cl -~r--r------ 1 I I 31 74 50/2" 82 22 33 141 52 ~ k:;& -e< u"' {::; "' ii? .,,._ ii! GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LO(; 220 High Street BORING NO (cont). B-3 San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 l JOB NO. SL06787-1 3!: Depth of Groun(hvater: 26.0 _Feet Boring Tenninated At: 40.0 Feet Page4 of5 "" ~ Ii; 0 -24 -27 -28 -29 -30 -31 -· -32 - -33 SOJL DESCRJPT!ON mcdinn1 dense SANDY CLAY: reddish brwon, saturated, very dense -34-,___ __ -35 -36 -37 - -JS"" -40- -4! - 42-- -43 -44 _49 SANDSTONE: very dark brow11, mosit, traces of sulfur anll tar, \'Cl)' dense dense ::t ::~- -50 -"•--"'-·--·--·------··· - ~ "" 0 "" '.::! D 11 0 ~ ~ Q iii "' B "' i5 ;;; h 0 :; i;1 . . . x . . . 8 IO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x 55 78 ~- -~- ~- ~- -;; . x 62 57 . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5015" 23 "" q f!i !j "' 8 h~ 2; u ~2 "' ::<: ffi? :!! 2; 0 0 [:! " u g !!} ::?; z ;:;o ...... Sri 0 "'u t:: 2 u 0 >< rs Q :,, u o"° Cg s ""' ~~ cl I I I 2; 0 i;1 "'~ -=r; i:iJ f:! ~ "" Gi ? I l I Lj _1 ___ L_~, .. L ,_ l _L >< h tJ q {::;' & ~ &) s; Q i'E GeoSolutions, Inc. BORING LOG 220 High Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PROJECT !NfORMATION PROJECT: 303 E. Branch Street DRILLING LOCATION: See Figure 2, Site Plan DATE DRILLED: September 2, 2008 LOGGED BY: BB ~ Depth of Grounchvater: 26.0 Feet 0 -I -2- -3 -4 -5- -6 -8 -9 -10 ·II -12 -I 3 -14 - -15 -16 -1 i SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL: brown, dry SJ\1\TDY CLAY: brown, wi1h gravel, dry very dense SANl)STONE: primarily olive brwon w/ bla~z-1 orange, ru1d gray vains, some gravel, weathered Pisn10 l~ormation, slighHy mo~i1, very dense orangish brown wi black and gray patches, wenthcred Pismo Formation, moist, very dense f------·--------·----J Cl-! :s:- :s:- -:s:- :s:- :s:- ~ ::::::-- :s:- ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BORING NO. B-4 JOB NO. SL06787-1 DRILLING !NfORMATION DRILLRJG: !-!OLE DJAMETER: CME55 4.0 Jnches SAMPLfNG METHOD: SPT HOLE ELEVATION: Not Recorded Boring Tenninated At: 15.0 Feet Page 5 of5 q "' (;'f ,_, i5 ti h ii; .s ~~ ?ff u ~ 2 ":! "' u t:_, ;;;: .s 6-w "' di t-~3 >-. ~ffl "' ' ~@ [;' & I ~f-; §} hf.I H ._.., ""-1 Ci 0 ~ () hi hZ ><: [() ;;; "' ~ ~ .g aa "'<iii 2 "' "'~ 8 ;,tq x 19 66 x 25 64 x 28 4-2 I I ~ 1:;& -" u"' ;::: Q ~(!; ;;; r I ---------- I l_ 1 I I I ' ' --__ _l __ , _ __J_ ---__ [ ____ J __ _l __ -18-j' -10. -20--· I I J_J ____ J APPENDIXB Laboratory Testing Moisture-Density Tests Direct Shear Test R-Value Test Expansion Index Tests July 28, 2015 Project 12-6322 LABORATORY TESTING Moisture-Density Tests The field moisture content, as a percentage of the dry weight of the soil, was determined by weighing samples before and after oven drying. Dry densities, in pounds per cubic foot, were also determined for the undisturbed samples. Results of these determinations are shown in the Exploration Boring Logs. Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed samples, to determine strength characteristics of the soiL The test specimens were soaked prior to testing, Results of the shear strength tests are attached, Resistance (R) Value Test An R-Value was estimated based on the gradation and plasticity index for a bulk sample obtained from boring B-1. The results indicate that the sandy clays have an R-Value of 12. Expansion Index Tests Expansion indices (E,/,) of 46 and 12 were obtained for the near surface silty clays and silty sands respectively. The test procedures were performed in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2. 't; c. ,,; DIRECT SHEAR TEST ASTM D3080-11 (Modified for unconsolidated-undrained conditions) Shear Strength Diagram 4000 3000 I ' ' ~ 2000 I--" " m • " Cl) Project: 1000 I, 0 I 0 1000 TOMPKINS HOTEL ~ _,/ -------. i~ ~ .,...-, i 2000 3000 Normal Stress, psf Project No. ·••······· -- ·-·-- 4000 12-6322 Sample Location: B-1@ 3' Initial Dry Density (pcf) 99.8 Soil Description: Sandy Clay Initial Moisture(%) 14.3 Sample Type: 0 Remolded Peak Shear Angle 24 @Ring Cohesion (psi) 310 ATTACHMENT D Purpose The purpose of this report is to quantify the impact of the proposed Tompkins Hotel-Branch Street development on the Tally Ho Creek flood plain. Methodology A flood plain encroachment analysis at the project site was conducted in 2012 for a different project. The results and conclusions of the analysis were presented in a report by North Coast Engineering, Inc. entitled Flood Plain Encroachment Analysis and Calculations of Tally Ho Creek at Branch Street and Other Drainage Calculations Associated with the Branch Street Market Project, Arroyo Grande, CA, dated December 2012, which was submitted to the City of Arroyo Grande. In this report it was shown that the proposed Branch Street Market Project improvements, which had slight encroachments into the regulatory floodway, caused insignificant changes to the 100 year water surface elevation (WSEL) with a maximum increase of 0.02'. Based on the site plan provided by Steven Puglisi Architects titled, "Tompkins Hotel- Branch St." and dated 10-01-15, an encroachment analysis of the improvements was performed employing the same methodology as the previous study, and the HEC-RAS model was modified to reflect the current proposed improvements. Also note that the existing ground surface that was used to model the pre-developed ground surface in the overbank areas was adjusted using topographic information that was not available when the previous analysis was performed. Results The HEC-RAS analysis results, which are enclosed, show that there was not an increase in the 100 year WSEL. In fact the there was a decrease in the WSEL in some areas due to the proposed grading along the overbank areas which provided increased conveyance capacity. Sections used in this analysis and the proposed project grading are shown on Exhibit A which is enclosed. Conclusion The results of the HEC-RAS analysis show that project improvements would not cause an increase to the 100 WSEL of Tally Ho Creek. In our opinion this meets the requirements of City of Arroyo Grande municipal code, Section 16.44.050.F.7 of a "zero rise" of the 100 year flood elevation. HEC-RAS River: Tally Ho Reach: Main Profile: PF 1Reach River Sta Profile Plan Q Total Min Ch El W.S. Elev Crit W.S. E.G. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (sq ft) (ft) Main 624 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 96.30 118.93118.96 0.000084 1.68 2328.82 384.980.07Main 624 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 96.30 118.92118.95 0.000093 1.76 2280.22 384.460.07Main 536 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 96.70 118.91118.95 0.000081 1.97 1956.43 361.120.08Main 536 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 96.70 118.89118.94 0.000118 2.13 1787.23 381.800.09Main 463 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 96.90 118.90118.94 0.000104 1.94 2027.24 353.760.08Main 463 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 96.90 118.90118.92 0.000131 1.42 1946.58 331.470.07Main 401.5* PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 96.00 118.91118.93 0.000082 1.68 2396.86 437.380.07Main 401.5* PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 96.00 118.88118.92 0.000086 1.72 2064.53 358.610.07Main 340 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 96.10 118.90118.92 0.000256 1.21 2193.30 420.450.05Main 340 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 96.10 118.86118.91 0.000309 1.32 1667.19 283.240.06Main 306 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 95.00 118.87118.92 0.000107 2.06 2103.34 453.640.08Main 306 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 95.00 118.86118.89 0.000193 1.53 1771.20 338.560.08Main 274.5* PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 95.00 118.87118.91 0.000135 1.87 2051.14 432.150.07Main 274.5* PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 95.00 118.86118.89 0.000172 1.42 1894.87 437.930.07Main 243 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 95.50 118.87118.90 0.000127 1.69 2102.13 480.780.07Main 243 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 95.50 118.86118.88 0.000099 1.49 2225.79 480.930.06Main 222 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 95.40 118.84 102.74 118.90 0.000114 2.28 1805.13 419.850.09Main 222 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 95.40 118.82 102.74 118.88 0.000101 2.14 1862.29 395.430.08Main 221 CulvertMain 144 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 92.40 117.99118.07 0.000117 2.67 1615.94 359.500.09Main 144 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 92.40 117.99118.07 0.000117 2.67 1615.94 359.500.09Main 100 PF 1 100 Pre-Dev 2600.00 90.20 118.00 98.62 118.06 0.000211 1.96 1382.54 147.250.08Main 100 PF 1 Tompkins2600.00 90.20 118.00 98.62 118.06 0.000211 1.96 1382.54 147.250.08 -500-400-300-200-10001002003004009010011012013014006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 2+43 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002009510010511011512012513006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 6+24 developedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003009510010511011512012513013506130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 5+36 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevIneff - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsIneff - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002009010011012013014006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 4+63 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003009510010511011512012513006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 4+01.5 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003004009510010511011512012513006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 3+40 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsIneff - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003004009510010511011512012513006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 3+06 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsIneff - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003004009510010511011512012513013506130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 2+74.5 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsIneff - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003004009010011012013014006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 2+22 DevelopedStation (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - TompkinsCrit PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevCrit PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003004009010011012013014006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Station (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - TompkinsCrit PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevCrit PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- Tompkins- Tompkins- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003004009010011012013006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Station (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - TompkinsEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevWS PF 1 - TompkinsCrit PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevCrit PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- Tompkins- Tompkins- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -400-300-200-10001002003004009010011012013006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 1+46Station (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -300-200-10001002003004009010011012013006130N-October 2012-copy Plan: 1) Tompkins 2) 100 Pre-Dev Section 1+00Station (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendEG PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevEG PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - TompkinsWS PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevCrit PF 1 - 100 Pre-DevCrit PF 1 - Tompkins- 100 Pre-Dev- 100 Pre-DevGround - 100 Pre-DevBank Sta - 100 Pre-Dev- Tompkins- TompkinsGround - TompkinsBank Sta - Tompkins -w ---w ---w ---w --w --w ---w SS ---SS ---SS ---SS --SS ----<@ NO SMl'i FO UND -SS ---SS ---SS ---ss --ss ---SS 3+00 3+00 J+OO 3+00 -----3+00 G ---G ---G -------- ---G 9 EX ISTING CURB ---G "' z " /; 0 --G --w ---w ---w ---w SCAI E· 1• • 20' 0 20 40 50 c 11 30 FL~ R ~ " 8 z " " - ---G 80 ""' ' ---w "'--w ~,,.v __ w EXI ST ING OV ERHEAD LIN ES F.F.= 120.8 Seating (N) HOTEL 2-Story 27,728 SF t 120.8 1ST FLR FF " 20 > 0 Lobb 120.24 s "\.~ ...... _.. Utlllty 120.60 FS 119.6 FS 2 .0% - CO N RUCTI N FEN E I " 1 EXISTING EP --- ---G 1 0 .30 1 2.19 F 8 WALL NSITION CROSS I 11 . 0 FS '"' SLOPE 4% 7® &;;;_--~- 1+00 116.18 TC ---o Laundry 1 0 + I I I I I o+Oo I '+i __..-TOP ~F SLOPE ; . \ 1 16.07 ' IM 01." 11 2.07 ' NV 1,1 .30 1 .90 F FS . TYPICAL A.C. .# PARKING \ . .,,. j j . ... ':t :;ii / f .• 115.50 .... ~· ~ .~ ~~ .:.....-----TOP OF SLOPE ~+ao I I j 3+40 o+oo J 3+06 2+75 2+43 • p._/, +22 + ---w --w ---w - I 13 PROPOSED DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH TO LE POINT STREET I ~ I ~ I ; .· !/ z .· " " " II " • • " " • • II II " II II II II -1+00 I -1+00 -1+00 -1+00 I I I • • • • • ==s~ss ETC - ----..., ··~NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. I • ...,, 725 Creston Rd. Suite 8, Paso Robles. 2J9-J127 STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN FG =PER PLAN 24" OF 50150 SAND COMPOST MIX 12"T024• OF GRAVEL Willi 40% VOIDS DRAINAGE RETENTION BASIN (TYPICAL) NOTTO SCALE FLOOD ELEVATION: BFE = 119.T MINIMUM F.F. = 120.80 CUT: 4, 100 CY FILL: 4,900 CY MAX CUT DEPTH= 12 FEET MAX FILL DEPTH= 7 FEET EXISTING FEATURES: CD EXISTING FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. 0 EXISTING SEWER LATERAL IN PLACE. CONNECT TO EXISTING STUB-OUT OR CLEAN -OUT 0 EXISTING WATER SERVICE . CONNECT FOR DOMESTIC AND FIRE PROTECTION. © EXISTING CONCRETE PATH AND OVERFLOW AREA. IN PLACE FROM ORIGINAL APPROVED IMPROVEMENTS. 0 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED . PROPOSED FEATURES: ® OF FLOOD PLAIN ENCROACHMENT WITHOUT INwiO,; TO 100-YR WSEL 0 ® ® @ EXTEND 5 FO IDE SIDEWALK TO CONNECT TO PROPOSED PATH . TH= 155 FEET t . RETENTION BASIN, SEE TYP 119.7 BASE FLOOD ELEVATION FOR 10ill'-l'EA PEDESTRIAN PATH TO LE POINT STREET. 5% DA ACCESSIBLE. SEE TRIAD MAP FOR PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT INFORMATION @ LARGE RETAINING WALL, VARIES 4' TO B' TALL. FIRE TRU MERHEAD TURN AROUND WITH 5% MAXIMUM CROSS SIN ANY DIRECTION. -2+00 LEGEND ' = CONCRETE BOX DRAINAGE INLET 851,5TG 845.51NV. TG = TOP OF GRATE INV.= INVERT ELEVATION -2+00 -SD - = 6" TO 18" HDPE STORM DRAIN PIPE a = JUNCTION STRUCTURE OR STORM DRAIN INLET 24" x 24" MAX SIZE . = RETAINING WALL 5 -= PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR ---841 __::,'+'lfl PROPOSED MINOR C = RIP-RAP VELOCITY DISSIPATER -··-·· = DRAINAGE SWALE, COURSE -2+.2.o AC PAVEMENT .-, = FIRE HYDRANT @ = SEWER MANHOLE = ED WATERLINE -2+00 --s--= PROPOSED SEWERLINE )» = FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION -2+00' EXHIBIT A -2+a3 -2+95 -3+003+05 -3+003-+05 -3+00 -3+0002 PRELIMINARY PLANS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -... :i ~ "' 0 -.. ... ·- -:I .... c ~ • E -' 8 > ii c u ~ .c I Thi! u5e ofthl!sl! plan> and spectfkatlon> shall bl! r"eSb'iCte<:I to the Ofiginal Site fot whi(h they W'!re pfel)Gr"ed and publkiitilln thereof is expressly limited W such use. Reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. Title to rhes.e plans and specifications remain ""1th Ashley & Vanc.e Engineering, Inc. without prejudice. Vls1.1al (Ont:actwlth these plans and speclflcatlot'ls shall constitut<! prim.a fa.ell! evidence of the ac~ptance of these restrictions. Engineer of Record: " E • z tl • e' ~ • f- Vl :::c u z ~ ca _J UJ f- 0 :::c Vl z -~ c.. ~ 0 f- Revi s ions: Proj . Engr.: SWL Date : 10.01 .1 5 Perm it No .: A&V Job No.: 15445 Prcij. Mngr.: KBB Scale : PER PLAN CIVIL PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Cl Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Prepared for: NKT Commercial, LLC Prepared by: ATTACHMENT E BRANCH STREET HOTEL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY Prepared For: NKT Commercial, LLC 684 Higuera Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared By: Omni-Means, Ltd. 669 Pacific Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 242-0461 OCTOBER 2015 65-4863-01 R2072TIA001.docx Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page i NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1  Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 3  Existing Transportation System ................................................................................. 3  Data Collection & Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 4  Existing Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................... 4  Existing Transit Services ............................................................................................ 5  Traffic Analysis Parameters ....................................................................................... 5  Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................ 8  Existing Traffic Operations ......................................................................................... 8  Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 12  Project Site Access .................................................................................................. 12  Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................ 13  Trip Reductions ........................................................................................................ 13  Project Trip Nature, Distribution, and Assignment ................................................... 14  Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects ................................................................................... 16  Short Term Projects Trip Generation ....................................................................... 16  Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project ............................................................... 20  Cumulative Conditions ................................................................................................................ 22  Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................... 22  Cumulative plus Project ........................................................................................... 24  Impacts and Mitigations .............................................................................................................. 26  Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page ii NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Project Location and Vicinity Map ................................................................................ 2  Figure 2 - Existing Control and Lane Geometrics ....................................................................... 10  Figure 3 - Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 11  Figure 4 - Project Trip Distribution .............................................................................................. 15  Figure 5 - Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects Volumes .................................................... 18  Figure 6 - Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project Volumes ................................ 21  Figure 7 - Cumulative No Project Volumes ................................................................................. 23  Figure 8 - Cumulative plus Project Volumes ............................................................................... 25  LIST OF TABLES Table 1 LOS Criteria and Definition For Intersections .................................................................. 6  Table 2 Existing Conditions: Intersection LOS .............................................................................. 9  Table 3 Weekday Project Trip Generation .................................................................................. 13  Table 4 Approved/Pending Projects ........................................................................................... 16  Table 5 Approved/Pending Projects Trip Generation ................................................................. 17  Table 6 Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects conditions: Intersection LOS ........................ 19  Table 7 Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project conditions: Intersection LOS .... 20  Table 8 Cumulative No Project Conditions: Intersection LOS .................................................... 22  Table 9 Cumulative plus Project Conditions: Intersection LOS .................................................. 24  APPENDIX Project Site Plan 2001 General Plan Update City Council Resolution No. 3555 Level of Service Worksheets Peak-Hour Warrant-3 Worksheets Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 1 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Introduction NKT Commercial, LLC, has retained Omni-Means to complete a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed development of 3 parcels totaling 1.86 acres located in Arroyo Grande in San Luis Obispo County, CA. The subject property is located in Arroyo Grande approximately one-half mile east of the US 101 Freeway and generally bounded by East Branch Street to the south, Le Point Street to the north, Mason Street to the west and Arroyo Grande Creek to the east as shown in Figure 1. A site plan is also included in the Appendix. The following scenarios are analyzed as a part of the TIS, as established in the original Scope of Work:  Existing Conditions;  Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects Conditions;  Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project Conditions;  Cumulative “No Project” Conditions; and,  Cumulative plus Project Conditions. For these scenarios, intersection AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses reflecting travel demand data will be completed for each scenario. In addition, potential transportation-related impacts of the proposed development will include a review of safety for pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, and vehicular mobility. Transportation improvements required to maintain acceptable vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle access and safety at all locations will be identified. The Existing conditions analyze current traffic operations within the study area. Traffic counts were taken at all study locations in order to simulate typical weekday conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects conditions includes any known and foreseeable projects within the study area and adds upon the Existing conditions analysis by adding peak hour trips generated by each project to the Existing intersections volumes. The Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project conditions then builds upon the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects conditions analysis by adding peak hour trips generated by the proposed project to the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects intersections volumes. The Cumulative No Project conditions analyzes future traffic forecasts using the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model, assuming full build-out of the City's General Plan land uses and circulation network. The City's General Plan land use on the proposed project site is "Village Core Downtown (VCD)” and “Village Mixed Use (VMU)", which allow for development of hotel uses. Cumulative plus Project conditions will be developed by replacing the existing General Plan land uses on the proposed project site with the proposed project land use. I I A ST I I ~ ~ u ~ ~ FAIR OAKS AVE _J Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> Project Location and Vicinity Map 10/13/2015 2:58 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG / Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 3 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Existing Conditions The City of Arroyo Grande is an incorporated community located with the "Five Cities" area of San Luis Obispo County, California. The city is located approximately 10 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo, along the US 1901 coastal corridor. The City is 5.84 square miles in area and is at an elevation of 114 feet. The City is located contiguous with the incorporated areas of the City of Pismo Beach to the northwest and the City of Grover Beach to the west. Based on the data provided by Census 2010, population in the City has increase roughly 1,400 from 15,851 in 2000 to 17,252 in 2010, a 9% increase. The proposed project is generally located on the northeast corner of E. Branch Street and Mason Street. Figure 1, shown previously, identifies the project location and vicinity map. Existing Transportation System The following roadways provide primary circulation within the City for Arroyo Grande and in the vicinity of the propose project. US 101 is a major north-south freeway facility that traverses along coastal California. US 101 serves as the principal inter-regional auto and truck travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County (and other portions of the Central Coast with the San Francisco Bay Area to the north and the Los Angeles urban basin to the south. Within San Luis Obispo County, US 101 provides major connection between and through several cities. Through the “Five Cities” area of the San Luis Obispo County, US 101 represents a major recreational as well as commuter travel route and has a general four-lane divided freeway cross-section with 65 mph posted speed limits. Within the City of Arroyo Grande, US 101 forms full-access interchanges with Oak Park Boulevard, Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue/Branch Street as well as direction interchange access at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue. East Branch Street is an arterial roadway that extends from Grand Avenue to the east and serves as the City’s main downtown commercial thoroughfare as well as a commuter connection between US 101 and SR 227. The duality of purpose of this three lane arterial with on street parking does create safety and capacity concerns. The high volume of traffic at times conflicts with the community’s desire to have a pedestrian-friendly downtown. East Branch Street was on the State highway system from its current terminus to US 101 but was relinquished to the City in November, 2008. This picture shows the project location in relation to the surrounding street system. Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 4 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Mason Street is a two lane collector that runs in a north south direction in downtown Arroyo Grande. Mason Street begins at Allen Street to the south and ends at La Pointe Street to the north. Traffic Way is an arterial street in Arroyo Grande that travels adjacent to and east of US 101. Within the study area, Traffic Way connects the Fair Oaks Boulevard interchange to the south with the Grand Avenue/Branch Street interchange to the north. Data Collection & Existing Traffic Volumes The traffic impact analysis for the Branch Street Hotel focuses on six (6) study intersections. The study intersections were selected based on consultation with City staff and a twenty (20) project-trip threshold, consistent with the Draft City Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, whereby a study intersection is analyzed if 20 or more project-generated trips are projected to travel through it. Intersection counts for the AM and PM peak hour were conducted on Wednesday September 24, 2014, and on Thursday, September 17, 2015. They were the following locations: 1. East Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps 2. East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps 3. East Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street 4. East Branch Street/Traffic Way 5. East Branch Street/Bridge Street 6. East Branch Street/Mason Street In addition, two (2) project driveways along the frontage of the project (E. Branch Street) will be analyzed. These will be identified as Project Driveway #1 (westerly, right turn access only) and Project Driveway #2 (easterly, full access). Traffic counts at these locations have been developed utilizing existing conditions and project trip generation. The AM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and the PM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. under typical weekday conditions. Existing Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities The City of Arroyo Grande adopted the 2012 Bicycle & Trail Master Plan which includes proposed bicycle and pedestrian trails, as well as on-street bicycle facilities to complete the partial network already in place in the City and County. The plan encourages the use of walking and bicycling and recognizes three classes of bikeways: Class I Multi Use Path typically known as bike paths, Class I facilities are multi-use facilities that provide a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. Class II Bike Lane known as bike lanes, Class II facilities provide a striped and signed lane for one way bicycle travel on each side of a street or highway. The minimum width for bike lanes ranges between four and five feet depending upon the edge of roadway conditions (curbs). Bike lanes are demarcated by a six-inch white stripe, signage and pavement legends. Class III Bike Route known as bike routes, Class III facilities provide signs for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway. Bike routes may be Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 5 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx enhanced with warning or guide signs and shared lane marking pavement stencils. While Class III routes do not provide measures of separation, they have an important function in providing continuity to the bikeway network. Bike Boulevards are streets with low motorized traffic volumes and speeds, designated and designed to give bicycle travel priority. Bike Boulevards use signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures to discourage through trips by motor vehicles and create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets. In the project vicinity, there is an Existing Bike Boulevard on E. Branch Street between Traffic Way and Bridge Street, a proposed Bike Boulevard on E. Branch Street from Bridge Street east of Mason Street, a proposed Bike Boulevard on Mason Street/Tally Ho Road north of Branch Street, and an Existing Class III Bike Lane on Bridge Street from Branch Street. The City is also engaged in the East Branch Street Streetscaping project which will enhance bicycle facilities east of Mason Street to Paulding Circle. Class II bicycle lanes were recently added to East Branch Street east of Paulding Circle as part of the Paulding Wall Repair project. Existing Transit Services The City of Arroyo Grande public transportation is provided by South County Area Transit (SCAT), a branch of San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA). SCAT routes 21, 22, 23, and 24 serve major roadways in the City. Out of those routes, SCAT route 24 directly serves the project area. Traffic Analysis Parameters This TIS provides a “planning level” evaluation of traffic condition, which is considered sufficient for CEQA/NEPA clearance purposes. The “planning level” evaluation incorporates appropriate heavy vehicle adjustment factors, peak-hour factors, and signal lost-time factors. LOS operations have been determined using HCM-2010 methodologies for determining intersection delay, incorporating the aforementioned factors. The following subsections outline the methodology and analysis parameters used to quantify traffic operations at study intersections. Intersection LOS Methodologies Levels of Service (LOS) have been calculated for all intersection control types using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. Traffic operations have been quantified through the determination of “Level of Service” (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade A through F is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. For signalized intersections and All-Way-Stop-Controlled (AWSC) intersection, the intersection delays and LOS are average values for all intersection movements. For Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersections, the intersection delays and LOS is representative of those for the worst-case movement. LOS definitions for different types of intersection controls are outlined in Table 1. Synchro 8 Modeling The Synchro Version 8 software suite by Trafficware has been used to implement the HCM-2010 analysis methodologies. The peak hour capacity tables contained in this report present the intersection delay and LOS estimates as calculated using the Synchro software. Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 6 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx TABLE 1 LOS CRITERIA AND DEFINITION FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Type of Flow Delay Maneuverability Stopped Delay/Vehicle Signalized Un signalized All-Way Stop A Stable Flow Very slight delay. Progression is very favorable, with most vehicles arriving during the green phase not stopping at all. Turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 B Stable Flow Good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Vehicle platoons are formed. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. >10.0 and < 20.0 >10.0 and < 15.0 >10.0 and < 15.0 C Stable Flow Higher delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. Back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted >20.0 and < 35.0 >15.0 and < 25.0 >15.0 and < 25.0 D Approaching Unstable Flow The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Maneuverability is severely limited during short periods due to temporary back-ups. >35.0 and < 55.0 >25.0 and < 35.0 >25.0 and < 35.0 E Unstable Flow Generally considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Indicative of poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. There are typically long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection. >55.0 and < 80.0 >35.0 and < 50.0 >35.0 and < 50.0 F Forced Flow Generally considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. Often occurs with over saturation. May also occur at high volume-to-capacity ratios. There are many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing factors. Jammed conditions. Back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement. Volumes may vary widely, depending principally on the downstream back-up conditions. > 80.0 > 50.0 > 50.0 References: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 7 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Level of Service Thresholds The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element specifies minimum level-of-service standards for all the streets and intersections within the City's jurisdiction. In section CT2, the City establishes the following performance standards for acceptable LOS: CT2. Attain and maintain Level of Service (LOS)’C’ or better on all streets and controlled intersections. CT2-1 Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS ‘D’ at a minimum and plan improvement to achieve LOS ‘C’ (LOS ‘E’ or ‘F’ unacceptable = significant adverse impact unless Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings approved). The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time. In addition to the City of Arroyo Grande designated LOS “C” as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on City facilities, Caltrans LOS policy for state highways will also be implemented. The Caltrans published Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (dated December 2002) states the following: “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS.” Consistent with Caltrans policies quoted above and City policies, LOS “C” has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadway segments maintained by the City, and LOS “D” has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadways maintained by the State. General Plan EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations During the 2001 update of the City General Plan, the City Council by Resolution No. 3555 made findings regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Update, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for certain unavoidable significant impacts relating to water, air quality and traffic. Resolution No. 3555 states in part "that, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, the adverse environmental effects related to circulation/transportation are significant environmental effects that cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the Project [General Plan Update] is approved because they are regional in nature and cannot be mitigated by the City policies alone." The Resolution further states "based on the Final EIR and the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, and other documents in the record, all remaining unavoidable significant environmental effects of the 2001 General Plan Update are overridden by the benefits of the Project [General Plan Update] as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations." The Resolution and attached Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in the Appendix. The 2001 General Plan EIR Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures lists a potentially significant impact under Section VI: "Transportation and Circulation," that "Correction of circulation deficiencies to LOS 'C' in question with all alternative Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 8 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx due to regional land use pattern. Major projects with cumulative traffic impacts include: 7) Village Core -- parking & E. Branch congestion unresolved. [This would] require Statement of Overriding Considerations for approval." The Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC, Exhibit B to Resolution No. 3555) states "the City Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update adoption against its unavoidable potentially significant environmental impacts. Based on consideration of the record as a whole, the City Council finds that the benefits of the 2001 General Plan Update outweigh the unavoidable and potentially significant environmental impacts and make adoption acceptable." Relating specifically to traffic, the SOC states that "Circulation/Transportation impacts are regional in nature and cannot be effectively mitigated by City policies alone." Analysis Methodology Synchro 8 will be used for this analysis. This computer software program is based upon the most recent version of the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Fourth Edition, 2010, and is consistent with the Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Report Guidelines (City of Arroyo Grande, 2015). Traffic signal timing information was obtained from Caltrans and is input into the model to accurately represent the existing conditions at the signalized intersections of E. Grand Avenue and the US Route 101 ramps. The total cycle length at these two ramp intersections ranged from 94 to 100 seconds. Omni-Means will apply level-of-service (LOS) “C” standard for all scenarios. In addition, seconds of delay will be considered. Significance thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections will be evaluated. Should LOS “D” or “E” conditions exist under the "No Project" scenario, any additional delay introduced by the project of more than 7.5 seconds for signalized intersections is considered a significant impact. Likewise, if LOS “F” conditions exist under the “No Project” scenario, any additional delay introduced by the project of 5.0 seconds or more for signalized intersections is considered a significant impact. For unsignalized intersections, the project is considered to have a significant impact if it would go from acceptable to unacceptable LOS conditions, or if it would increase the delay by more than 5.0 seconds at an intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable condition under the “No Project” scenario. Existing Traffic Operations The Existing condition analysis investigates current traffic operation within the City of Arroyo Grande in the vicinity of the project site. Figure 2 shows existing intersection lane geometries and control, while Figure 3 shows existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations are quantifies using intersection lane geometrics and traffic volumes. Table 2 shows the peak hour intersections level of service operations at study locations under existing conditions. Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 9 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx TABLE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS No. Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? 1 East Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 8.3 A -- 11.3 B -- 2 East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 17.7 B -- 8.3 A -- 3 East Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street TWSC 58.2 F No 130.4 F Yes 4 East Branch Street/Traffic Way Signal 20.2 C -- 19.1 B -- 5 East Branch Street/Bridge Street TWSC 14.0 B 13.2 B 6 East Branch Street/Mason Street Signal 14.9 B -- 12.5 B -- Legend: TWSC: Two-Way Stop-Control; Warrant: CA MUTCD Peak-Hour Warrant-3. OVRFL = Overflow Conditions > 100 Seconds Delay. As presented in table 2, all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS with the exception of LOS F at the intersection of E. Grand Avenue and W. Branch Street in both the AM and PM peak hour. In addition, the intersection at E. Grand Avenue and W. Branch Street currently meets the Peak-Hour Warrant-3 during PM peak hour conditions. All mitigation measures will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. 1 3 5 ~ + ~ + ~ j ~ .____ dOlS .-dOlS .- ____J. STOP ____J. ____J. STOP _____. + -v i -v / PROJECT Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> Existing Lane Geometrics and Control 10/13/2015 2:58 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG 1 In' ~LO <ON "'~ ~,.., ~ l'-1 ~l -705(665) .i y-99(139) 553(459)--+ 252(339)~ / PROJECT 2 ~483(419) -599(628) 145(70)____; i i 581(644)--+ ~ ~ "' ~ I'-"' .::::.. LO' LO <O 0 N 3 55(70)___J i i i 585(620)--+ ~~~ 6(15)~ .:=,~~ "' "' Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 10/13/2015 2:59 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG 15(15)___J i i i 420(445)--+ ~~~ 180(215)~ g ~ ;:!; ..i-~~ ~~N a~N "' LO ~~ om~ DO LO l'- ¥'i0'0 ~15(16) j 00! "l -618(485) .i y-86(74) 29(55)___J i i i 390(380)--+ ~~~ 4(52)~ g~:g CLO'~ N LO g E. BRANCH STREET LEGEND: 5 0 oo~~ ¥8.S. ~2(6) j 0! 0l -577(555) .i y-121(120) 20(46)___J i i i 370(428)--+ ~~~ 25(50)~ s.s.gi 00¥ 0 xx AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES (XX) -PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 12 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Project Description The term “project,” as used in this TIS, refers to the development of 3 parcels on 1.86 acres (81,022 square feet) located on the north side of E. Branch Street as shown on Figure 1. The proposed project is a 27,728 square foot, two-story 51 room hotel project with 65 parking spaces and a proposed pedestrian pathway from Branch Street to Le Point Street. The lot coverage is broken down as follows: Parking spaces and drive aisles will occupy 218,000 square feet; landscaping and parking 21,780 square feet; 184,422 square feet of undisturbed land; and, 5,100 square feet of flatwork. Overall, the floor area ratio is 0.34 FAR and the minimum number of parking spaces required is 54, with 65 proposed. Project Site Access According to the site plan as shown below, the proposed project will develop one project site access on the north side of East Branch Street east of Mason Street. This driveway will be approximately 36’ wide and will enter into the parking lot south of the proposed building. There is an existing driveway located just west of the proposed project boundary that will function as a shared driveway with the property to the west. Due to the shared driveway's proximity to the E. Branch Street/Mason Street intersection and westbound exclusive left turn lane, the shared driveway is constructed with right-in/right-out access only. Therefore, it has been assumed that the entire project trips will utilize the eastern driveway as indicated below. Because the trips will be assigned to one driveway, it assumes the worst case scenario, which is consistent with CEQA. The City is currently underway with the East Branch Streetscaping project, which will design and construct landscaped medians, bulb-outs and pedestrian and bicycle enhancements. As part of that project, it is anticipated that a raised median will be constructed near the western driveway to further solidify the prohibited left turn movements to or from the driveway. Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 13 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Project Trip Generation Based upon the City’s Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Report Guidelines, a complete and thorough traffic impact study will be required for a project when the projected trip generation is equal to or greater than 20 trips during the AM or PM peak hour.. For this TIS, project related impacts are evaluated for weekday conditions therefore weekday trip rates for the proposed project are provide in Table 3. Table 3 summarizes the estimated trip generation of the project’s land-uses based upon data presented in ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition). Trip reductions were also applied and are further discussed in this section. As shown inTable 3, the project is anticipated to generate 432 daily trips, including 32 AM peak hour trips and 34 PM peak hour trips. TABLE 3 WEEKDAY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Land Use Category Unit Daily Trip Rate/Unit Weekday AM Peak Hour Rate/Unit Weekday PM Peak Hour Rate/Unit Total In % Out % Total In % Out % Hotel [ITE Code: 310] Per Occupied Room 8.92 0.67 58% 42% 0.70 49% 51% Description Quantity Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Total In Out Total In Out Hotel [ITE Code: 310] 51 Rooms 455 34 20 14 36 18 18 Project Trips 455 34 20 14 36 18 18 Trip Reduction (5%)1 (23) (2) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) Total Project Trips 432 32 19 13 34 17 17 1 Assumes 5% Bicycle and Pedestrian Usage (e.g., trips for shopping/dining for occupants and employees). Note: Errors due to rounding may occur. Trip Reductions In developing traffic and transportation impact analyses for urban and suburban infill projects, professionals have often relied on ITE published trip generation rates for various types of land use. The ITE data, however, are predominantly representative of suburban contexts and their automobile-dependent land use patterns and transportation networks and typically do not take into account variations in type and location (suburban versus urban) of proposed land uses, proximity of transit service, and the existence of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The common use of suburban-focused vehicular trip generation data in the preparation of TIAs, combined with a lack of information and techniques on how and when to adjust the data, has often resulted in an application of conventional trip generation rates to proposed infill development, even in places that are compact, highly walkable, and transit-rich.1 This use of conventional data can over-predict vehicular traffic impacts, resulting in possible mitigations that negatively affect use of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the infill 1 Trip Generation Rates for Transportation Impact Analyses for Infill Development – NCHRP Report 758 (2013). Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 14 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx project area. Inaccurate data may also result in excessive traffic mitigation fees or requirements for additional infrastructure that can hinder the type of development that promotes lower automobile use.2 Conventional trip reduction calculations, i.e., pass-by, diverted link and internal capture rate reductions were not assumed for this study due to the site’s proposed uses. For this study, however, a 5% trip reduction will be assumed as a result of potential bicycle and pedestrian usage. Due to the downtown geographic location, several shopping and dining opportunities are available to the hotel occupants and employees. In addition, bicycle and pedestrian facilities are immediately available to non-automobile users. This includes the proposed on-site pedestrian/mixed-use trail along the eastern portion of the development and sidewalks and allowable shared bike lanes on East Branch Street through the downtown Village. Project Trip Nature, Distribution, and Assignment The project is expected to “generate” and “attract” trips throughout the City and from other locations throughout the area. Directional trip distribution for project generated trips was estimated based upon use of the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model, existing traffic flow patterns, geographic location of the project sites, and location of other similar destinations. This resulted in a distribution of all project trips throughout the study area that is illustrated on Figure 4 and is summarized below:  6% to/from East Branch Street e/o Mason Street  2% to/from Mason Street n/o East Branch Street  2% to/from Mason Street s/o East Branch Street  10% to/from Traffic Way s/o East Branch Street  5% to/from W. Branch Street n/o E. Grand Avenue  15% to/from East Grand Avenue w/o US 101  30% to/from US 101 n/o East Grand Avenue  30% to/from US 101 s/o East Grand Avenue 2 Ibid. ~ ~ PROJECT LOCATION u ~ I ~ FAIR OAKS AVE :\=-=-!'-'==-=r-=r--i---~-1 I -I rt-t I Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> Project Trip Distribution 10/13/2015 2:59 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG / Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 16 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects Short Term Projects Trip Generation Based upon the City’s Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Report Guidelines, short term conditions analysis represents a near-term future analysis scenario in which approved/pending development projects and transportation system improvements are assumed to be constructed. This scenario is representative of conditions in the foreseeable future, typically within the next 5 to 10 years. For the Branch Street Hotel TIS, several projects within the project vicinity are proposed. These include projects that are generally located east of Halcyon Road, including the US 101 freeway, and further to the east. Table 4 represents a partial list of approved/pending projects that was provided by the City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department. TABLE 4 APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS City of Arroyo Grande - Approved/Pending Projects # Location Description Status 1 Grace Lane 15 single-family homes and 4 apartments Under Construction 2 Old Ranch Road 4 residential lots and 1 public facility lot Approved 3 250 Ridgeview Way 3 residential lots Approved 4 415 East Branch Street 24 townhouses and 13,000 SF retail/office building on 2.78 acres Approved 5 May Street 7 residential lots Approved 6 Corbett Canyon 11 residential lots Pending 7 Pearwood Avenue 8 residential lots Approved 8 Huasna Road 12 residential lots Approved 9 East Cherry Avenue 28 single-family homes Under Construction 10 E. Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way 58 new residences, cultural center, unknown commercial dev. Pending 11 NWC Fair Oaks Avenue/Woodland Drive 44,926 square foot medical office building Pending As identified in Table 4, 11 projects within the vicinity of the project have been identified. These include nine residential projects and two non-residential projects. Table 5 indentifies the estimated weekday daily and peak hour trip generation for the approved/pending projects within the vicinity of the Branch Street Hotel. As shown in Table 5, it is estimated that 2,537 daily trips will be generated, including 233 during the AM peak hour and 238 during the PM peak hour. As also indicated in the table, an internal capture rate of 10% was applied for specialty retail center and medical-dental office land uses. Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 17 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx TABLE 5 APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Land Use Category Unit Daily Trip Rate/Unit Weekday AM Peak Hour Rate/Unit Weekday PM Peak Hour Rate/Unit Total In % Out % Total In % Out % Single Family Dwelling Units SFDU 9.52 0.75 25% 75% 1.0 63% 37% Multi-Family Dwelling Units MFDU 6.65 0.51 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35% Townhouses/Condos DU 5.81 0.44 17% 83% 0.52 67% 33% Retail/Office Building 1,000 sf 44.32 6.84 48% 52% 2.71 44% 66% Medical Office1 1,000 sf 36.13 2.39 79% 21% 3.57 28% 72% Description Quantity Daily Trips Weekday AM Peak Hour Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Total In Out Total In Out Single Family Detached Housing [ITE Code: 210] 142 1,352 107 27 80 142 89 57 Apartment [ITE Code: 220] 4 27 2 1 1 2 1 1 Residential Condominiums/ Townhouse [ITE Code: 203] 24 139 11 2 9 15 10 5 Specialty Retail Center [ITE Code: 826] 13 576 89 43 46 35 15 20 Medical-Dental Office Building [ITE Code: 720] 14.96 541 36 28 8 53 15 38 Project Trips 2,635 245 101 144 247 130 121 Trip Reduction (10%)1 (112) (13) (7) (5) (9) (3) (6) Total Project Trips 2,537 233 94 139 238 127 115 1 Assumes 10% Internal Capture Rate for Specialty Retail Center and Medical-Dental Office. Errors due to rounding may occur. The likely distribution of the identified approved/pending projects’ trip generation was determined by use of the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model, existing traffic flow patterns, geographic location of the project sites, and location of other similar destinations. Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects conditions were then developed by superimposing the projected AM and PM peak hour trips shown in Table 5 onto the existing traffic volumes provided on Figure 3 with the resulting Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects traffic volumes are presented on Figure 5. 1 In' ~LO <ON "'~ ~,.., ~ l'-1 ~l -717(667) .i y-99(139) 565(471)--+ 252(339)~ / PROJECT 2 ~483(419) -611(640) 145(70)____; i i 593(656)--+ ~ ~ "' ~ I'-"' .::::.. LO' LO <O 0 N 3 55(70)___J i i i 597(632)--+ ~~~ 6(15)~ .:=,~~ "' "' Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> 15(15)___J i i i 432( 467)--+ ~~~ 180(215)~ g ~ ;:!; ..i-~~ ~~N a~N "' LO ~~ om~ DO LO l'- ¥'i0'0 ~15(16) i DO! l'-l -630( 497) .i y-86(74) 29(55)___J i i i 402(392)--+ ~~~ 4(52)~ g~:g CLO'~ N LO g E. BRANCH STREET LEGEND: 5 0 DO~~ ¥8.S. ~2(6) j 0! 0l -589(567) .i y-121(120) 20(46)___J i i i 382(440)--+ ~~~ 25(50)~ s.s.gi 00¥ 0 xx AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES (XX) -PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Approved/Pending Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 10/13/2015 2:59 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 19 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Based on the peak hour volumes shown on Figure 5, intersection analysis was then performed assuming the existing intersection lane geometrics and control types (Figure 2). Table 6 presents the results of the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects conditions analysis. TABLE 6 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS No. Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? 1 East Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 8.5 A -- 11.6 B -- 2 East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 17.3 B -- 8.3 A -- 3 East Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street TWSC 64.8 F No 148.8 F Yes 4 East Branch Street/Traffic Way Signal 20.7 C -- 19.4 B -- 5 East Branch Street/Bridge Street TWSC 14.2 B 13.4 B 6 East Branch Street/Mason Street Signal 15.2 B -- 12.7 B -- Legend: TWSC: Two-Way Stop-Control; Warrant: CA MUTCD Peak-Hour Warrant-3. OVRFL = Overflow Conditions > 100 Seconds Delay. As presented in Table 6, all study intersections except intersection #3 (E. Grand Avenue and W. Branch Street) are projected to operate acceptably under Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects conditions. Intersection 3 is projected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours, with the approved/pending projects calculated to add 6.6 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 18.4 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour. In addition, intersection #3 is projected to meet the Peak-Hour Warrant-3 during PM peak hour conditions. All mitigation measures will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 20 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project conditions were developed by superimposing proposed AM and PM peak hour project-generated trips (Table 3) using the proposed project trip distribution (Figure 4) onto existing traffic volumes (Figure 3). The resulting Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project traffic volumes are presented in Figure 6. Intersection analysis was performed assuming the existing intersection lane geometrics and control types (Figure 2). Table 7 presents the results of the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project conditions analysis. TABLE 7 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS No. Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? 1 East Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 8.5 A -- 11.7 B -- 2 East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 17.6 B -- 8.3 A -- 3 East Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street TWSC 69.7 F No 157.9 F Yes 4 East Branch Street/Traffic Way Signal 21.6 C -- 19.6 B -- 5 East Branch Street/Bridge Street TWSC 14.4 B 13.6 B 6 East Branch Street/Mason Street Signal 15.5 B -- 12.8 B -- Legend: TWSC: Two-Way Stop-Control; Warrant: CA MUTCD Peak-Hour Warrant-3. OVRFL = Overflow Conditions > 100 Seconds Delay. As identified in Table 7, all study intersections are projected to operate acceptably under Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project conditions with the exception of the intersection at E. Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street. In addition, the intersection at E. Grand Avenue and W. Branch Street is projected to meet the Peak-Hour Warrant-3 during PM peak hour conditions. All mitigation measures will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. 1 'O ~"' ID N "'~ ~IX) ~ l'-1 ~l -719(679) .i y-103(145) 571(476)--+ 252(339)~ / PROJECT 2 ~488(425) -617(648) 145(70)____; i i 604(666)--+ co 'if)' ~e ~ 0 ~ l'- N 3 -;:::-0 l'-~ll) ';::"~'iO ~129(105) i ~! ~l -1055(991) .i y-9(12) 55(70)___J i i i 613(646)--+ ~~~ 6(15)~ .:=,~~ "' "' Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> 15(15)___J i i i 449( 482)--+ ~~~ 180(215)~ g ~ ~ ..i-~~ ~~..i­ a~N "' It) ~~ ocn~ 1Xlll)r-- ¥'i00 ~16(17) ilXl! IXll -644(514) .i y-87(75) E. BRANCH STREET LEGEND: 5 'O ro~~ ¥8.S. ~2(6) j 0! 0l -602(584) .i y-121(120) 20(46)___J i i i 401(457)--+ ~~~ 25(50)~ s.s.gi 00¥ 0 xx -AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES (XX) -PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing plus Hour Traffic Approved/Pending Volumes plus Project Peak 10/13/2015 3:00 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 22 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Cumulative Conditions Cumulative conditions refer to an analysis scenario approximately 20 years in the future. Cumulative conditions were analyzed by deriving traffic volume forecasts using the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model, assuming full build-out of the City's General Plan land uses and circulation network. Cumulative No Project conditions will assume that the proposed project site is developed consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, "VCU" and “VMU”, which allows for hotel development. Cumulative plus Project conditions will be developed by replacing the existing General Plan land uses on the proposed project site with the proposed project land use. Cumulative No Project Traffic Volumes The existing City Travel Demand Model was used to generate the Cumulative base condition volumes. Future lane geometrics are the same as the existing intersection lane geometries and control as shown in Figure 2. Figure 7 shows Cumulative No Project peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections. Table 8 shows the peak hour intersections level of service operations at study locations under Cumulative No Project conditions. TABLE 8 CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS No. Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? 1 East Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 9.6 A -- 14.8 B -- 2 East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 16.7 B -- 10.1 B -- 3 East Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street TWSC 153.2 F No OVR F Yes 4 East Branch Street/Traffic Way Signal 23.1 C -- 26.3 C -- 5 East Branch Street/Bridge Street TWSC 14.8 B 15.0 C 6 East Branch Street/Mason Street Signal 16.7 B -- 14.7 B -- Legend: TWSC: Two-Way Stop-Control; Warrant: CA MUTCD Peak-Hour Warrant-3. OVR = Overflow Conditions > 100 Seconds Delay. As presented in Table 8, one intersections are forecasted to operate at unacceptable LOS in Cumulative No Project conditions. The E Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street intersection is projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour periods. This intersection also is anticipated to meet the Peak-Hour Warrant-3 under PM peak hour conditions. Recommended improvements to mitigate these deficiencies are proposed in the concluding section of this report. 1 LO ~ 0 0..., CXJ ~ ~ 0 0 0 i Nl -800(790) .i y-115(165) 625(545)--+ 285(405)~ / PROJECT 2 ~555(495) -680(745) 165(85)____; j i 660(765)--+ O' LO N t:. ~ U) ~ " N 3 IO 0 00~<0 CS'eCS' ~145(125) I U)! Nl -1170(1140) .i y-15(15) 65(85)____; j i i 660(735)--+ ~~~ 10(20)~ ~~3. U) 0 ~ N Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> Cumulative Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 10/13/2015 3:00 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG IOLOIO U) CXJ U) (5'(5'(5' ~ 10(20) ';rn! Nl -640(680) .i y-130(105) 20(20)___J i i i 475(540)--+ ~~~ 205(255) ~ ~ ~ ~ U)~~ ~U)U) o~N " "' ~ ~o~ U)l'-U) O>~N 'i!28'5' ~20(20) I ~! ~l -700(575) .i y-100(90) E. BRANCH STREET LEGEND: 5 Cl oo~~ '5'8.8. ~ 5(10) 'f 0! 0l -655(655) .i y-140(145) 25(55)___J i i i 420(510)--+ ~~~ 30(60)~ ~~! 0 N xx AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES (XX) -PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 24 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Cumulative plus Project Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes were derived from adding project trips (Table 3) to Cumulative No Project volumes (Figure 7). Future lane geometrics are the same as the existing intersection lane geometries and control as shown in Figure 2. Figure 8 shows Cumulative plus Project peak hour traffic volumes at study intersections. Table 9 shows the peak hour intersections LOS operations at study locations under Cumulative plus Project conditions. TABLE 9 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS No. Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? 1 East Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 9.8 A -- 15.3 B -- 2 East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 17.0 B -- 10.3 B -- 3 East Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street TWSC 177.3 F No OVR F Yes 4 East Branch Street/Traffic Way Signal 23.8 C -- 27.1 C -- 5 East Branch Street/Bridge Street TWSC 15.1 C 15.3 C 6 East Branch Street/Mason Street Signal 17.1 B -- 14.9 B -- Legend: TWSC: Two-Way Stop-Control; Warrant: CA MUTCD Peak-Hour Warrant-3. OVR = Overflow Conditions > 100 Seconds Delay. As shown in Table 9, Intersection #3 is projected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hour periods during the Cumulative plus Project conditions. Additionally, intersection at E. Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street is expected to meet the Peak-Hour Warrant-3 under PM peak hour conditions. All mitigation measures will be discussed in the following section of this report. 1 'O or;:; CXJ ~ ~I{) 0 0 i Nl -802(792) .i y-119(171) 631(550)--+ 285(405)~ / PROJECT 2 ~560(501) -686(753) 165(85)____; j i 671(775)--+ 'O o;- N t:. ~ 0 ~ CXJ N 3 IO -;::-oo ~co (:)~;;:::" ~146(126) 11{)! Nl -1181(1154) .i y-15(15) 65(85)____; j i i 676(749)--+ ~~~ 10(20)~ ~~3. I{) 0 ~ N Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study <TIS> IOLOIO ll)CXJI{) (5'(5'(5' ~ 10(20) 11{)! Nl -652(695) .i y-132( 107) 20(20)___J i i i 492(555)--+ ~~~ 205(255) ~ ~ ~ ~ I{)~~ ~IOr-. o~N r-. co ~ LnRLO °'~N 'i!28':::" ~21(21) I ~! ~l -714(592) .i y-101(91) 35(65)___J i i i 464(467)--+ ~~~ 5(65)~ ~E,§ IOIO~ N tD ~ N E. BRANCH STREET LEGEND: 5 Ii)' "'~~ '5'8.8. ~ 5(10) 'f 0! 0l -669(672) .i y-140(145) 25(55)___J i i i 439(527)--+ ~~~ 30(60)~ ~~~ (5' N xx AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES (XX) -PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 10/13/2015 3:00 Pt.1 \ \10.2.250.11\DATA\COt.1t.10N\PRJ\2072\T2072\T2072TG001.DWG Branch Street Hotel Transportation Impact Study Page 26 NKT Commercial, LLC R2072TIA001.docx Impacts and Mitigations Under all analyzed scenarios, the E. Grand Avenue / W. Branch Street intersection operates at a Level of Service (LOS) 'F'. Under the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project conditions, the project contributes to the projected AM and PM peak hour LOS 'F' at the intersection and increases the delay by more than 5 seconds in each scenario, thus making the project a significant impact. However, as discussed earlier in this report there is a standing statement of overriding considerations with respect to significant and unavoidable circulation/transportation impacts of the 2001 General Plan Update, and in particular development in the Village Core and congestion on East Branch Street. The City is in the process of updating the General Plan Circulation Element and Traffic Impact Fee program, which will further evaluate those improvements and revenues required to achieve the City's goals with respect to traffic level of service, both for the existing and cumulative conditions. The project is therefore not required by current City policy to mitigate its impact concurrent with approval, however it should contribute its fair share toward a future mitigation. A potential mitigation for impacts to the E. Grand Avenue / W. Branch Street intersection would be to install a traffic signal at the intersection, a project which is included in the City's Impact Fee Program. This project should pay the fair share contribution of the traffic signal installation costs at the E. Grand Avenue / W. Branch Street intersection, using the Equitable Share Responsibility Formula from the 2002 Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. The Project should also pay traffic impact fees for Street Improvements and Traffic Signals for impacts to the overall City circulation network. Appendix 1. Project Site Plan 2. 2001 General Plan Update City Council Resolution No. 3555 3. Level of Service Worksheets 4. Peak-Hour Warrant-3 Worksheets Steven PuglisiSHEET NO.:PROJECT: All ideas, designs, arrangements andplans indicated or represented by thedrawings are owned by, and the propertyof, Steven Puglisi, Architect, and werecreated and developed for use, and inconjunction with, the specific projectdescribed herein. None of these ideas,designs and arrangements or plans shallbe used by, or disclosed to any person,firm, or corporation for any purposewithout permission of Steven Puglisi,Architect. Filing these drawings with apublic agency is not a publication ofsame, and no copying, reproduction oruse thereof is permissible without theconsent ofSteven Puglisi, Architect.DATE:JOB:DRAWN:REV.:mtd07-28-2015xTompkins Hotel - Branch St.for NKT Commercial325 E Branch St., Arroyo Grande, CaliforniaA R C H I T E C T S,INC.SHEET TITLE:569 Higuera StreetSuite ASan Luis ObispoCA 93401Ph: 805.595.1962Fx: 805.595.1980HC 1 2 9 3 808.31.15VETSLGUPREN. DATEINEATCETICRADESNECILSTATEOFCALIFORNIS I PROJECT DESCRIPTIONA PROPOSAL FOR A 27,728 SQUARE FOOT 51 ROOM HOTEL PROJECT with 65 PARKING SPACES AND A PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY FROM BRANCH STREET TO LE POINT STREET.DIRECTORYP1.0TITLE SHEET-PROJECT DATA - OVERALL SITE PLANC1PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC2PRELIMINARY SITE GRADING SECTIONSL1CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANL2CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANP2.0OVERALL SITE PLAN, ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN and PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANP3.0FIRST FLOOR PLANP3.1SECOND FLOOR PLANP4.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSP5.0BUILDING SECTIONS AND DETAIL ELEVATIONSE100SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN1 of 1LOT MERGER AND EASEMENT EXHIBIT MAP12 TOTAL SHEETSSHEET INDEXPROJECT DATA & STATISTICSGENERAL SITE INFORMATIONPROJECT ADDRESS:325 E BRANCH STREETARROYO GRANDE, CAASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:007-202-014007-202-028007-202-031LOT SIZE:81,022 square feet (1.86 acres)LAND USE DESIGNATION:Village CoreCURRENT SITE(S) USAGE:Vacant CommercialZONING DESIGNATION:Village Core Downtown (VCD)Village Mixed Use (VMU)ZONING HAZARDS:FH - Flood HazardBUILDING AREAHOTEL27,728square feetTOTAL27,728square feetLOT COVEREAGEHOTEL FOOTPRINT13910square feetPARKING & DRIVE AISLES21800square feetFLATWORK5110square feetLANDSCAPING AT PARKING21780square feetUNDISTURNED LAND18422square feetTOTAL81022square feetFLOOR AREA RATIO = 27,728 / 81,022 = 0.34 FARPARKING REQUIREMENTS1 space per hotel room (2 additional spaces for management office)Parking Spaces Required=54Total Proposed Parking Spaces=65VICINITY MAPnot to scaleP1.0TITLE SHEET and OVERALL SITE PLANElevation from E. Branch St.SITEE. BRANCH ST.NOT TO SCALETO SAN LUIS OBISPO101TO SANTA MARIALARCHMONT DR.WESLEY ST.WILTON PL.ARROYO GRANDE CREEKNELSON DR.POOLE ST.SHO R T ST. S. MASO N ST.OLAHAN ALYSTATI O N WAY NEVA D A ST.HART LNLE POINT STN. MASO N ST. CROW N TERRA C E TALLY HO RD. MILLER WAY NSOILS ENGINEER:GSI524 E Chapel StSANTA MARIA, CA 93454BIOLOGIST:Sage II1065 Higuera Street, Suite 301SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.434.2904CULTURAL RESOURCE:CRMS829 Paso Robles StreetPASO ROBLES, CA 93446LAND SURVEYOR:TRIAD HOLMES ASSOCIATES555 Chorro St. Suite A1SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401TRAFFIC ENGINEER:HATCH, MOTT, MACDONALD1300-B First St.GILROY, CA 95020OWNER:NKT COMMERCIAL684 Higuera, Suite BSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ARCHITECT:STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTURE569 Higuera St. Suite ASAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401(o) 595-1962 (f) 595-1980CIVIL ENGINEER:ASHLEY VANCE ENGINEERING1413 Monterey St.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:FIRMA187 Tank Farm Rd. Suite 230SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ELECTRICAL ENGINEER:ABOVE GRADE1304 Broad St.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONOVERALL SITE PLANScale: 1:20SSCONOPARKING APPROXIMATE TOP OF BANKN 28°59'48" W 155.74'SSCO22'-0 5/8"LobbySeatingupFF 120.8upPROPOSED BUILDINGNot in Project ScopeNot in Project ScopeNot in Project ScopeNot in Project ScopeEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING RESIDENCELE POINT STREETHARDEN ST.EAST BRANCH STREET 10010204052468SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"EXISTING BUILDING RESOLUTION NO. 3555 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of ARROYO GRANDE MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE 2001 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande as the lead agency has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR} for the 2001 General Plan Update (Project), including Land Use, Agriculture and Open Space/Conservation, Circulation, Housing, Safety, Economic Development, and Parks and Recreation Elements, future consideration of Zoning/Development Code revisions, LAFCO, Sphere of Influence and Annexations, Development and Capital Projects, Public Facility and Service Improvements and Technical Studies. WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared and circulated for public .review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEOA Guidelines, and the City's Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and the CEOA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and responses to the comments raised during the public review period and at the public hearings has been prepared which incorporates written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA and the City's CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande held duly noticed . public hearings on July 18, July 19, July 25, and August 7, 2001, and the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on July 31, August 16, August 23, August 28, September 4, September 6, October 3, and October 9, 2001 at which all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has adopted Resolution No .. 3554 · certifying that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEOA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Procedures; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report on the 2001 General Plan Update. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOl VED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande as follows: 1 . The City Council certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the implementation of the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. RESOLUTION NO. 3555 PAGE2 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final EIR: a. that, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that will avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental impacts on circulation/transportation, water supply, and air quality identified in the Final EIR; b. that, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, the adverse environmental effects related to circulation/transportation are significant environmental effects that cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the Project is approved because they are regional in nature and cannot be mitigated by the City policies alone; . c. that, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effect~ and Mitigation Measures the adverse effects related to water resources are significant environmental effects that cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is approved because water resources are utilized by other cities, the county, special districts and numerous individuals, businesses, and agriculture not under the control of the City of Arroyo Grande; d. that, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures the adverse effects related to air quality are significant environmental effects that cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is approved because changes to land use and circulation patterns outside the City limits, particularly in the unincorporated area are not subject to the City's jurisdiction and the Clean Air Plan is the responsibility of the Air Pollution Control District and also not subject to the jurisdiction of the City of Arroyo Grande. e. that no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result of Project approval; RESOLUTION NO. 3555 PAGE 3 f. that all significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level in that: ( 1) all significant environmental effects . that can feasibly be avoided . have been eliminated . or substantially reduced as determined through the · findings set forth in . this Resolution; {2) based upon the Final EIR and Statement of Significant Environmental Effects and MitigatioffcMeasures and other documents in the record, specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible other project alternatives identified in the Final EIR; (3) . based on the Final EIR and the· Statement of-Significant Environmental Effects and· Mitigation·· Measures, and other documents in the record, ·all .remaining, unavoidable significant environmental effects of the 2001 General Plan Update are overridden by the benefits of the Project as described in the Statement of Overriding. Considerations, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "Bn and incorporated herein . by reference, which Statement of Overriding Considerations is hereby approved and adopted by the City Council. 4. The City Council authorizes and directs that the Director of Administrative Services promptly file a Notice of Determination with respect to the Final EIR for the Project, specifically referencing therein that mitigation measures have been made a . condition of project approval, findings have been made pursuant to Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted. On motion of Council M~mber Lubin, seconded by Council Member Runels, and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Lubin, Runels, Dickens, Ferrara, Lady None None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 9th day of October, 2001. RESOLUTION NO. 3555 PAGE4 ATTEST: RE1 DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Environmental Impact Topic Area of Potential G.P. Policy = Area Less Than Significant Significance -Project Mitigation Mitiaation Measures I. LAMQ !..!SE At:m PLANf!lrn~ Land Use Study Areas involving 1) LU9 Developed areas of the City will remain . potentially significant impacts -2) LU2-2 & LU10 unchanged fonn 1990 GP and existing Require project EIRs to resolve · 3) LU2-2 & LU10 use, except within 12 Land Use Study mitigation measures: 4) LU2-2 & LU9 subareas identified. Change areas are 2) Rancho Grande-Noyes Road 53 5) LU Fringe 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, mitigated by proposed altematfve, GP ac.@SFR-LD-PD & C/OS = 35du max. 1.5 & 1.6 policy, or requirement for project EIR. 3) Rancho Grande-Lacanada 6) LUS & LU10 Less than significant (L TS) impacts 27as;;,@C/QS-S-PD-5du max. (Require 7WN&E) LU2-4 determined for following study areas: EIR if GPA for more than Sdu PD). 7W&S) LU-5 l) Oak Park Acres at James Way-4) Royal Oaks estates 37 ac®SFR~ 7E) LU2·3 Church and school dassified CF LD-PD&C/OS=20du max. 8) LU10=LU11 5) Printz, Noyes and Oak Parle Roads -5} Northern SOI 60ac.@SFR-LD-PD = &LUll-6.10 Northern Sphere of Influence (SOI) -60du max. 9) Ag!, Ag3, Ag4,Ag5,Ag6 Exdude 700+ac. From SOI, retaining 6) camlno Mercado (Regional 10)LU2-3 LU10 LU11 60ac. on Hwy 227. Commercial uses may require project 11) LUS 6) Camino Mercado -cemetery EIRs). 12} LUS classified CF. Other lots dassified MU-7E) Myrtle & Cherry 21ac.@ SFR· All LU 12 PD-LTS except possible regional MD=95du max. Require EIR and PD if commercial uses GPA for more than SFR-MD-PD. Qrculation Element 7WN&E) Village Core expansion to 8) Frederick/ ALC & Williams SOI exclude existing residential areas . dasS!fied SP&SP Reserve. Require Land Use Element dassified SFR-MD areas to be SFR-MD. EIR prior to development or 7W&S) Village Area fonner HC and GC annexation. Agricultural and Open zoned areas dasslfied MU. SE of Cherry. 10) Farrall Ave. 10 ac.@SFR-MD-PD Space/Conservation retained Ag except hill area or MFR-PD if GPA for more than 45 Element SFR-LD&C/OS. du may require project EIR. 7E) Former RR dassified.21ac. area on 11} E. Grand Ave. Mixed Use area Oean Air Plan (CAP). Myrtle & Cherry to be SFR-LD,LM or projects may require project EIRs. MD: 20, 50 or 95 du::t:: potential vs. 12) El camino Real commercial or Drainage Master Plan 20du@ prior= LTS assuming Ag buffer. Industrial use projects may require 9) Valley Rd. Ag to remain outside SOI project EIRs, depending on new uses. Water Master Plan classified County Ag. 10) Farrall Ave. 10ac.@ SFR-LM or MD, 25to 45du. 11) E. Grand Ave. Mixed-Use Corridors- exclude existing residential areas dassified SFR-MD. 12) El camino Real existing industrial, commercial office and residential uses classified MU. II. e.QPULAilQ~ 8~C l:iQ!.!SI~~ No significant displacement of 2001 General Plan Update Build-out existing housing. Require studies same as 1990. Population under for projects more than 20 Housing Element 20,000 does not exceed resources dwellings. Require project EIR or regional projections. for more than 40du or sensitive sites. III. GEOPHYSICAL 2) Rancho Grande--Noyes Rd. 2001 General Plan Update Integrates 3) Rancho Grande--LaC'.anada - Safety Element policies. Increased 4) Royal Oak Estates -Require landslide and erosion exposure In Project EIRs or geo study Safety Element certain hillside development areas. 5) Northern SOI-Hwy 227 Seismic hazards mitigated by 8) Fredericks/ ALC & Williams - construction standards. Require Specific Plans & EIRs EXHIBIT A Impact After Mitigation Less than Significant Less than significant Less than significant Environmental Impact Topic -Area of Potential Significance -G.P. Polley Mitigation Impact After Area less Than Significant Project Mitigation Measures Mitigation IV. WATER Arroyo Grande groundwater basin Agriculture Potentially significant 20,000 population and development allocations & safe yield Conservation and Open -Requires Statement capacity of 2001 General Plan unresolved. Space Element of Overriding Update may exceed 3590 ac.ft. Cumulative regional uses could Considerations for available water resources unless per exceed resources: potentially Land Use Element approval capita consumption limited to significant. Resolve regional 160gpd/p. Also dependent on other groundwater study & resource Urban Water jurisdictions, Ag use, & County allocations now to enable Management Plan Residential and Suburban water use mitigation/resource management Amendment not exceeding current levels. Safe before permanent damage. yield & allocations unresolved. Land use study areas with Cumulative storm drainage drainage concerns include: Creek setbacks Less than significant degradation to water quality from 2) Rancho Grande-Noyes Rd. Require project EIRs certain projects. 3) Rancho Grande-Lacanada 4) Royal Oak Estates Storm Water Pollution 8) Fredericks/ ALC & Wiiiiams Prevention Plan 11) E. Grand Ave Mixed Use required 12) El camino Real Mixed Use V. AIR OUALIJY Arroyo Grande growth beyond land Use Element Potentially significant 2001 General Plan Update similar to 18,676 population in 2010 due to current non- 1990 General Plan In bulld·out & requires CAP amendment, but Circulation Element attainment future land use: state ozone standard still current plan allows more sprawl CAP amendment, & exceeded. Update population than proposed by 2001 Update. Agriculture, uncertain projection for Arroyo Grande after Transportation management Conservation, and Transportation 2010 exceeds 18,676 and requires strategies to encourage increased Open Space Bement Management aean Afr Plan amendment to alternative circulation modes Strategies on regional reduce County fringe and South uncertain. CAP Amendment to basis: requires County growth. Mixed Use & address regional issue. Statement of compact community development Overriding would reduce trips and vehicle Considerations for miles traveled vs. suburban scrawl. aooroval. VI. TRAt:jSPOBTATIO~ AND Correction of circulation CIRCULATION deficiencies to LOS 'C' in question 2001 General Plan Update land use with all alternative due to regional dependent on many regional land use pattern. Major projects circulation system improvements with cumulative traffic impacts not yet resolved, including many Include: gq~11t1a11ys1g~fn~11t: street segments & Intersection 5) Northern SOI unless mitigation Land Use Element R~yi~ §~tement of deficient for LOS 'C'. Current fees established & density And ~~md.!n~ • . > regional development pattern reduced. Circulation Element ConSiderationsfor promotes County residential rural 7·i'VUlage ~re -parking&E~ app~val. and suburban sprawl without 1 Br~och congestion unrese>lve,~c# assured mitigation. 8) Fredericks/ALC & Williams - Specific Plan.& EIR required. 11 & 12) E. Grand Ave & El camino Real Mixed Use parking & realonal conoestlon unresolved. Environmental Impact Topic -Area of Potential Significance G.P. Policy Impact After Area Less Than Significant -Project Mitigation Measures . Mitigation Mitigation VII. !3lQL.OGICAL RESOURCES Project EIRs required for sensitive Open Space and 2001 GPU redistributes additional sites in City (See above). Propose Conservation Element planned development to least reduction of impact by LU Fringe Policies of sensitive sites & maximizes Mixed alternatives. Land Use Element Use to conserve remaining resource less than significant areas. Riparian corridor & wetland City should initiate riparian restoration programs weak, corridor acq., wetland restoration, however. County development In and storm water pollution Fringe Area much greater impact prevention programs after GPU. potential but beyond City jurisdiction. VIII. f~f&.GY A~Q MltjfRAL These statewide and national State and Federal RESOURCfS issues are not addressed in the Programs required to 2001 GPU does not differ from 1990 scope of this program EIR. address Issues Less than significant GP. No identified mineral resources in area. No local programs for new energy conservation measures proposed nor new facility provided. IX. HAZARDS Density reduction essential in Are safety concern in Northern SOI .land Use Study Area 5. for addressed by reduced density Northern SOI: Projects may still and/or need for new County CDF need fire safety mitigation due to Safety Element Less than significant Station. Increased development in 15 minute response time. Major Mixed Use Corridors & Village Core mixed use projects In Village Core may require flood, fire & project may need special fire and flood mitiaations. mitigation. x. NQISJ; Mixed Use projects and major Land Use Element Mixed Use areas lndude residential expansion in land Use Study area Park & Recreation use & potential land use 8, Frederick/Ale & Williams will Element compatibility concerns. Major require project study & mitigation Less than significant expansion area adjoining Freeway due to traffic noise exposure. 101 also exposed to traffic noise sources. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES large scale projects such as land Land Use Element Cumulative impacts of urban Use Study Area 8, Frederick/Ale Park &. Recreation population growth & additional & Williams require project Specific Element development may exceed current Plans and EIRs. Other cumulative State needs to Increase police & fire service capabilities developments warrant school development less than significant without assured mitigation consideration of new impact fees, priority not resolved In measures. Other Planned particularly in County Fringe Area. General Plan. Developments will generally provide Planned Developments will for project mitigation but provide project mitigation cumulative growth anywhere in measures. Lucia Mar School District will impact overcrowded schools. Environmental Impact Topic -Areas of Potential G.P. Policy Impact After Area Leu Than Significant Significance -Project Mitigation Mitigation Mitiaation Measures XII. UIILITY ANJ.2 SERVICE Potentially significant unless Land Use Element SYSTEMS Northern SOI excluded & density C/OS 6. Cumulative impacts other than reduced. Specific Plans & EIRs Northern SOI & southeast required for southeastern Less than significant expansion. Land Use Study Areas 5 expansion to detennine mitigation &. 81 appear capable of measures. development with relatively minor mitigation measures for water, sewer, drainage & other utility infrastructure lmoacts. XIII. AESTHETICS Large scale & mixed use projects Land Use/ Agricultural, Cumulative development eroding require design review. Planned Open Space & rural & small town character. Developments & Specific Plans Conservation Elements. Community design guidelines &. also include architectural New .development·stan- project design review partially landscape & signage design ards for Mixed Use Less than significant mitigates aesthetic Impacts. standards. areas needed .. XIV. !:UL.1URAL Bf;SQUBCES Village Core mixed use projects, Conservation Element Property specific surveys needed to in particular, need to provide site- mitigate historical &. archeological specific resource survey &. project Parks & Recreation Less than significant impacts. Most significant design proposals to mitigate loss Element concentration of historic resources of historic or archeologlcal is in Land Use Study Area 7, Village resources. Core & environs. XV. RECREATION Potential for 20,000 City Cumulative developments population implies need for at contribute to increased regional least 20 acres of additional parks, Parks &. Recreation need for park facilities &. recreation local and regional funding & Element Less than significant programs offset In City by in-lieu Implementation programs needed fees or dedication of added land. to mitigate. Need implementation programs for recreational trails & Increased reciional fundina resoonsibilitv. EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDl;RATIONS The Final EIR identified numerous mitigation measures that are included as part of the 2001 General Plan Update. Some require implementation on a regional basis or primarily require County, LAFCO, APCD, Caltrans or other agency approval and/or implementation. If these regional measures are· established and enforced, air quality, traffic circulation, and water resources might be mitigated to a. less than significant level. Until these regional measures are implemented, .adoption ofthe 2001 General Plan Update may involve unavoidable significant impacts based on City approval. alone. Therefore, CEQA findings and a statement of overriding consideration are needed to explain why the City considers these potentially significant Impacts as .unavoidable but acceptable. The Qty Council has weighed the benefits of the proposed 2001 General Plan Update adoption against its unavoidable potentially significant environmental Impacts. Based on. consideration of the record as a whole, the City. Council finds. that the· benefits of the 2001 General Plan Update outweigh the unavoidable and potentially significant environmental impacts and make adoption acceptable .. The following are specific benefits of the 2001 General Plan Update which outweigh the unavoidable potentially significant adverse environmental impacts and make adoption of the Update acceptable: 1) Circulation/Transportation impacts are .. regional in nature and cannot be effectively mitigated by City policies alone. However, the Circulation/Transportation Element provides for coordinated circulation planning and land use objectives that enable continued improvement of a regional functional classification system of streets and highways; proposes to attain and maintain a Level of Service 'C'; encourages multi-modal alternatives to new street and highway construction; promotes environmental balance including energy conservation, reduction of air and noise pollution and emphasizes transit, bike and pedestrian modes where feasible; and seeks regional and County cooperation. All of these objectives and related policies are intended to influence transportation/circulation standards, improvement projects and implementation measures related to continued growth and development enabled by the 2001 General Plan Update. Without adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update objectives and policies, the same unavoidable potentially significant adverse effects would be experienced without the substantial benefits of better balanced circulation/transportation policies within the City. 2) Current estimates of regional water resources available during drought periods may be more or less than the City's currently available municipal water supply sources as documented in the City of Arroyo Grande water Master Piao and Urban Water Management Plan. This is because these water resources are also utilized by the Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach, the Oceana and Nipomo Community Services Districts, the County of San Luis Obispo and hundreds of individual private agricultural and Rural and Suburban Residential wells. These other jurisdictions and users are not under the control of· the City of Arroyo Grande. Continued agricultural irrigation and projected unincorporated area growth and development, particularly the responsibility of the. County of San Luis Obispo to manage, make it infeasible for the City of Arroyo Grande to mitigate water resource impacts to potentially less than significant. However, the 2001 · General Plan ·Update contains principles, objectives and .. : policies• related to the conservation of water resources and reduced· consumption within the City which better manage and limit land use and urban development to that which can likely be sustained by available water resources. · 3) Until compliance with State air quality standards is attained and the Clean Air Plan is amended, potential regional air quality impacts can be reduced but not to a level of less than significant.· Changes to land use and circulation patterns outside the City limits, particularly in the unlncorporated·eounty Residential Rural and Suburban Arroyo Grande Fringe Area require.approval .. by the County of San .. Luis . Obispo as .would continued regional growth In the Nlpomo, area of South County. Amendment of the Clean Air Plan Is also beyond the control and jurisdiction of the City of Arroyo Grande, being the responsibility of the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). However, the 2001 General Plan Update contains policies which will partially mitigate air quality. impacts arising from within the City, Including those requiring mixed use and compact community development and Increased multi-model alternative transportation, which will reduce trips and vehicle miles traveled compared to the 1990 Plan. 4) The proposed land use categories, densities, allowed uses, development and design standards reflect, in part, requests of affected property owners and review of proposals by advisory committee, Planning Commission and City Council to determine more compatible land use patterns and acceptable development standards and design criteria than currently in effect In the 1990 Arroyo Grande General Plan ("1990 Plan''); 5) The proposed land use classifications provide a better balance of reasonable use considering generalized environmental constraints and resource considerations. The changes to the 1990 General Plan Land Use Element proposed by the 2001 General Plan Update promote more opportunities for mixed uses, higher density residential development, better jobs -housing balance, more compact urban form, more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and more compatible land use patterns than the 1990 plan. The adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update will promote controlled urban growth within the City at a· slower average annual rate and with better urban services than under the 1990 Plan. 2 6) The 2001 General Plan Update provides for planned development of useable but vacant, undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels within the established subdivision pattern. Planned development will provide opportunities for construction and new business employment and contribute to increased revenue from additional property and sales taxes, a positive economic impact on the fiscal health of the City compared to negative Impacts of significant expense for denial of reasonable use. 7) The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space. Element· contain· objectives to encourage preservation of prime farmland and. natural environmentally sensitive resources and habitat areas, and conserve non-prime,. scenic resources and buffer areas. These objectives are intended to protect and minimize impacts to the environment including new initiatives that will ·only be established upon adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update. Beneficial protection, preservation and conservation of productive agriculture and natural resource areas outweigh the possible significant advers.e impacts associated with utilization of limited water resources and/or air quality problems related to agricultural Irrigation, dust and other compatibility concerns. 8) The Urban Area Land Use Element contains objectives including many new policies intended to accommodate a diversity of.housing .. types and densities; . provide for adequate medical ano professional office uses, commercial and other mixed uses to serve the area population; to enhance the Village and other business areas of the City; to provide for Community Facilities, Planned Development and Specific Plan areas deserving of special site development consideration; to promote land use that protects the Integrity of existing development and considers finite resource and existing infrastructure constraints, and protects rural setting and small town character by community design and development standards. The beneficial social function and aesthetic affects of these community design and development standards enabled by new uses and better controlled growth outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse Impacts identified In the Final EIR. 9) The Housing Element provides for affordable housing Incentives; enables housing compatible with commercial and office uses in Mixed Use and Village Core districts; and promotes housing conservation. The social and economic opportunities to create a better jobs-housing balance and provide for more affordable housing types and densities are largely dependent on allowing continued growth and development within the City. These social and economic benefits outweigh the potential traffic, water resources and air quality impacts projected due to continued regional population growth and related development. 10) The Economic Development Element, derived from an already adopted economic development strategy, is primarily intended to reinforce the existing job base by 3 local business retention and expansion and promote additional base level jobs; enhance a balanced community image; encourage agriculture, housing, business, retail and service commercial sectors and tourism; and Improve .pro-business development processes. These economic development strategies, particularly additional employment, business and housing development outweigh the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts . associated with regional water resource, traffic and air quality constraints identified in the Final EIR. 11) The Park and Recreation, Noise and Safety Elements propose additional park and recreation and sport facility improvements to existing public .facilities; . promote systems of trails, bike routes, and pedestrian . areas; · propose future park development with continued population growth; : protect. citizens .. from excessive noise and prevent incompatible uses and traffic; Improve emergency preparedness; and reduce flood, fire, geologic and seismic and other hazards. The social and environmental benefits of these proposed changes, associated with continued· growth and development, outweigh the potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR. 12) Additional population growth and economic activity which may occur through adoption of the 2001 General Plan Update would have similar adverse environmental effects wherever they occur within the South County and San Luis Bay Planning Areas. The City considers these impacts less severe If more of the growth and development are accommodated within and adjacent to existing urban areas compared to similar growth in remaining rural areas of the region. State and County populations are projected to increase at approximately one and two percent annually for the next twenty years and the City cannot ignore, nor alone alter these trends. The City's planned residential and non·residential growth rate for this same period, at approximately one percent, is at the low end of the range projected for State and County. Among the social and economic benefits of controlled growth and development in the City of Arroyo Grande are: 'R) reinforcement and enhancement of the Village Core as a community and Visitor serving, pedestrian oriented commercial and compatible mixed area; b) restructuring and revitalizing of E. Grand Avenue General Commercial area into a Mixed Use corriqor including more attractive shopping, increased employment opportunities, and compatible office, services and residential developments; c) improvement of El camino Real Industrial and Traffic Way General Commercial areas into Mixed Use corridor and gateway areas more diversified and attractive than previous development; and, d) Increased opportunities for multiple family residential housing that tends to be more affordable than prtor large lot single family. These social and economic benefits outweigh the potential significant adverse impacts identified in the Final EIR. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 3555 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, KELLY WETMORE, Director of Administrative Services/Deputy City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that Resolution No. 3555 is a true, full, and correct copy of said Resolution passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the gttt day of October, 2001. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 12th day of October, 2001. RE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ DEPUTY CITY CLERK HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary1: Grand & US 101 SB Off Ramp 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 805 593 0 173 31 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 0.0 173.1 173.1 0.0 173.1 173.1 Lanes 022011 Cap, veh/h 0 2148 2148 0 300 268 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.00 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3462 3462 0 1648 1471 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 947 698 0 204 36 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1731 1731 0 1648 1471 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 5.8 3.9 0.0 4.7 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.8 3.9 0.0 4.7 0.8 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2148 2148 0 300 268 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.44 0.32 0.00 0.68 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 4358 4358 0 1261 1126 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.0 3.7 0.0 15.5 13.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.0 1.9 0.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.2 3.7 0.0 18.2 14.1 Lane Grp LOS A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 947 698 240 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.2 3.7 17.6 Approach LOS A A B Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.1 29.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 51.0 51.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.4 17.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 5.7 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 TWSC1: Grand & US 101 SB Off Ramp 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 2 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary2: US 101 SB On Ramp & Grand 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)553 252 84 677 0 0 Number 4 14 3 8 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 173.1 180.0 173.1 173.1 Lanes 2012 Cap, veh/h 1596 726 124 3086 Arrive On Green 0.71 0.71 0.08 0.89 Sat Flow, veh/h 2255 1025 1648 3462 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 500 447 99 796 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1731 1550 1648 1731 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 4.4 2.2 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 4.4 2.2 1.2 Prop In Lane 0.66 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1225 1097 124 3086 V/C Ratio(X)0.41 0.41 0.80 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2954 2645 849 8066 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 2.2 2.2 16.8 0.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 10.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 2.4 2.5 27.7 0.3 Lane Grp LOS A A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 947 895 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.4 3.4 Approach LOS A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 3 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.1 6.8 36.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 63.0 19.0 86.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 4.2 3.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 19.7 0.2 21.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 2.9 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 TWSC2: US 101 SB On Ramp & Grand 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 4 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary3: Grand & US 101 NB Ramps 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)142 578 0 0 554 433 205 0 65 0 0 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 174.8 174.8 0.0 0.0 174.8 180.0 180.0 174.8 174.8 Lanes 120020011 Cap, veh/h 219 2412 0 0 916 709 324 0 290 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.00 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1664 3495 0 0 1829 1416 1664 0 1485 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 178 722 0 0 661 572 256 0 81 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1664 1748 0 0 1748 1498 1664 0 1485 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 21.1 21.5 10.2 0.0 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 21.1 21.5 10.2 0.0 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 219 2412 0 0 875 750 324 0 290 V/C Ratio(X)0.81 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.76 0.79 0.00 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 359 2915 0 0 980 840 574 0 513 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 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 13.9 14.0 26.6 0.0 23.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.7 4.3 0.0 0.5 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 9.0 7.9 4.4 0.0 1.2 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 36.5 4.3 0.0 0.0 16.9 17.7 30.9 0.0 24.4 Lane Grp LOS D A B B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 900 1233 337 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.6 17.3 29.3 Approach LOS B B C Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 8 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.2 52.0 38.8 17.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 58.0 39.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 7.6 23.5 12.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 23.6 11.4 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.5 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 TWSC3: Grand & US 101 NB Ramps 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 6 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 TWSC4: Branch & Branch St 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 7 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 2.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 48 561 2 9 1040 98 9 0 16 14 3 41 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 -------- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 55 638 2 10 1182 111 10 0 18 16 3 47 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1293 0 0 640 0 0 1361 2062 320 1686 2007 647 Stage 1 ------748748-1258 1258 - Stage 2 ------6131314 - 428 749 - Follow-up Headway 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 532 - - 940 - - 107 54 676 61 59 414 Stage 1 ------371418-181241- Stage 2 ------446226-575417- Time blocked-Platoon, % - - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 532 - - 940 - - 82 48 676 54 52 414 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------8248-5452- Stage 1 ------333375-162238- Stage 2 ------386224-502374- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1 0.1 27.7 52.3 HCM LOS D F Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)187 532 - - 940 - - 139 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 0.103 - - 0.011 - - 0.474 HCM Control Delay (s)27.7 12.539 - - 8.872 - - 52.3 HCM Lane LOS D B A F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.524 0.341 - - 0.033 - - 2.183 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary5: Traffic Way & Branch St/Branch 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)10 407 173 112 565 5 590 11 22 14 40 14 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 174.8 174.8 181.7 174.8 174.8 174.8 174.8 174.8 181.7 180.0 174.8 180.0 Lanes 111111211010 Cap, veh/h 185 641 567 339 735 625 1238 670 592 130 381 130 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.37 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.42 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1664 1748 1545 1664 1748 1485 3229 1748 1545 338 994 338 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 12 473 0 130 657 6 686 13 0 79 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1664 1748 1545 1664 1748 1485 1614 1748 1545 1671 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 15.3 0.0 2.7 22.8 0.2 10.8 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 15.3 0.0 2.7 22.8 0.2 10.8 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 185 641 567 339 735 625 1238 670 592 641 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.06 0.74 0.00 0.38 0.89 0.01 0.55 0.02 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 267 751 664 358 777 661 1238 670 592 641 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.6 17.9 0.0 12.2 17.5 11.0 15.7 12.5 0.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 3.2 0.0 0.7 12.4 0.0 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.1 6.8 0.0 1.0 11.5 0.1 4.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 15.7 21.1 0.0 12.9 30.0 11.0 17.5 12.5 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp LOS B C B C B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 485 793 699 79 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.0 27.0 17.4 13.4 Approach LOS C C B B Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.8 27.9 8.3 31.4 29.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 28.0 5.0 29.0 25.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 17.3 4.7 24.8 12.8 4.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.4 0.0 2.6 2.7 2.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 21.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes HCM 2010 TWSC5: Traffic Way & Branch St/Branch 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 9 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 TWSC6: Bridge & Branch 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 10 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 20 370 25 121 577 2 0 0 104 0 0 49 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 45 - - 200 -------0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 23 430 29 141 671 2 0 0 121 0 0 57 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 673 0 0 459 0 0 1444 1446 445 1444 1459 672 Stage 1 ------491491-953953- Stage 2 ------953955-491506- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 918 - - 1102 - - 110 132 613 110 129 456 Stage 1 ------559548-311338- Stage 2 ------311337-559540- Time blocked-Platoon, % - - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 918 - - 1102 - - 85 112 613 78 110 456 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------85112-78110- Stage 1 ------545534-303295- Stage 2 ------237294-437526- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 1.5 12.3 14 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)613 918 - - 1102 - - 456 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.197 0.025 - - 0.128 - - 0.125 HCM Control Delay (s)12.3 9.023 - - 8.744 - - 14 HCM Lane LOS B A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.729 0.078 - - 0.437 - - 0.425 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary7: Mason & Branch 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)29 390 4 86 618 15 20 55 180 7 85 64 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 176.5 176.5 180.0 176.5 176.5 180.0 180.0 176.5 176.5 180.0 176.5 180.0 Lanes 110110011010 Cap, veh/h 47 819 9 127 890 21 151 370 417 62 262 186 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.47 0.47 0.08 0.52 0.52 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 1742 19 1681 1717 41 303 1331 1500 24 941 667 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 34 0 458 100 0 736 87 0 209 181 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 0 1761 1681 0 1758 1634 0 1500 1633 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 12.7 4.0 0.0 23.7 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 12.7 4.0 0.0 23.7 2.6 0.0 8.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.02 0.26 1.00 0.04 0.41 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 47 0 828 127 0 911 521 0 417 509 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.73 0.00 0.55 0.78 0.00 0.81 0.17 0.00 0.50 0.36 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 148 0 1212 295 0 1364 521 0 417 509 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.9 0.0 13.0 31.0 0.0 13.6 18.7 0.0 20.7 20.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.1 0.0 0.6 10.1 0.0 2.3 0.7 0.0 4.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.0 5.2 2.0 0.0 9.6 1.2 0.0 3.3 2.7 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 52.0 0.0 13.5 41.1 0.0 15.9 19.4 0.0 24.9 21.9 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp LOS D B D B B C C Approach Vol, veh/h 492 836 296 181 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 18.9 23.3 21.9 Approach LOS B B C C Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.9 36.1 9.2 39.4 23.0 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 47.0 12.0 53.0 19.0 19.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 14.7 6.0 25.7 10.0 8.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 10.2 0.1 9.7 1.6 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 TWSC7: Mason & Branch 10/9/2015 Base AM 9/25/2015 Baseline AM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 12 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary1: Grand & US 101 SB Off Ramp 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 1 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0 459 663 0 255 66 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 0.0 176.5 176.5 0.0 176.5 176.5 Lanes 022011 Cap, veh/h 0 1792 1792 0 404 360 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3529 3529 0 1681 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 483 698 0 268 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1765 1765 0 1681 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 2.5 3.9 0.0 4.6 1.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 2.5 3.9 0.0 4.6 1.2 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1792 1792 0 404 360 V/C Ratio(X)0.00 0.27 0.39 0.00 0.66 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 4671 4671 0 2118 1891 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.5 4.8 0.0 10.9 9.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 1.8 0.4 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 4.5 4.9 0.0 12.8 9.9 Lane Grp LOS A A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 483 698 337 Approach Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.9 12.2 Approach LOS A A B Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.1 20.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 42.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 5.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 10.3 10.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 6.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 TWSC1: Grand & US 101 SB Off Ramp 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 2 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary2: US 101 SB On Ramp & Grand 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)459 339 139 663 0 0 Number 4 14 3 8 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 176.5 180.0 176.5 176.5 Lanes 2012 Cap, veh/h 1221 900 193 3108 Arrive On Green 0.65 0.65 0.12 0.88 Sat Flow, veh/h 1890 1394 1681 3529 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 451 389 146 698 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1765 1519 1681 1765 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 4.1 2.8 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 4.1 2.8 1.0 Prop In Lane 0.92 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1140 981 193 3108 V/C Ratio(X)0.40 0.40 0.75 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2897 2494 1355 9061 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 2.8 2.8 14.4 0.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.3 5.9 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 3.0 3.1 20.2 0.3 Lane Grp LOS A A C A Approach Vol, veh/h 840 844 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.1 3.8 Approach LOS A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 3 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.6 7.9 33.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 55.0 27.0 86.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 4.8 3.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 15.6 0.4 16.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 3.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 TWSC2: US 101 SB On Ramp & Grand 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 4 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary3: Grand & US 101 NB Ramps 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)64 609 0 0 628 419 176 0 61 0 0 0 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 176.5 176.5 0.0 0.0 176.5 180.0 180.0 176.5 176.5 Lanes 120020011 Cap, veh/h 81 2404 0 0 1096 731 272 0 243 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 3529 0 0 1978 1319 1681 0 1500 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 66 628 0 0 577 502 181 0 63 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1765 0 0 1765 1532 1681 0 1500 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.1 5.1 0.0 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 11.0 11.1 5.1 0.0 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 2404 0 0 978 849 272 0 243 V/C Ratio(X)0.82 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.67 0.00 0.26 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 363 4021 0 0 1491 1294 792 0 707 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 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 7.5 7.5 20.0 0.0 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 2.8 0.0 0.6 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.4 2.2 0.0 0.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 41.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.2 22.8 0.0 19.2 Lane Grp LOS D A A A C B Approach Vol, veh/h 694 1079 244 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.9 8.1 21.9 Approach LOS A A C Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 8 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.5 38.7 32.2 12.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 58.0 43.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 5.5 13.1 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 19.0 15.2 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.4 HCM 2010 LOS A Notes HCM 2010 TWSC3: Grand & US 101 NB Ramps 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 6 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 TWSC4: Branch & Branch St 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 7 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 64 587 0 12 964 104 11 1 16 49 2 71 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 90 - - 0 -------- Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 67 611 0 12 1004 108 11 1 17 51 2 74 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1113 0 0 611 0 0 1273 1883 306 1523 1828 556 Stage 1 ------745745-1083 1083 - Stage 2 ------5281138 - 440 745 - Follow-up Headway 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 623 - - 964 - - 124 70 690 81 76 475 Stage 1 ------372419-232292- Stage 2 ------502275-566419- Time blocked-Platoon, % - - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 623 - - 964 - - 93 62 690 71 67 475 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------9362-7167- Stage 1 ------332374-207288- Stage 2 ------415271-492374- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0.1 29.1 114.5 HCM LOS D F Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)178 623 - - 964 - - 140 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.164 0.107 - - 0.013 - - 0.908 HCM Control Delay (s)29.1 11.47 - - 8.783 - - 114.5 HCM Lane LOS D B A F HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.57 0.358 - - 0.039 - - 6.143 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary5: Traffic Way & Branch St/Branch 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)12 445 212 86 568 13 454 12 34 46 69 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 176.5 176.5 183.5 176.5 176.5 176.5 176.5 176.5 183.5 180.0 176.5 180.0 Lanes 111111211010 Cap, veh/h 311 711 628 403 713 606 1125 609 538 171 254 149 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.40 0.00 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 1765 1560 1681 1765 1500 3261 1765 1560 495 737 432 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 12 454 0 88 580 13 463 12 0 158 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 1765 1560 1681 1765 1500 1630 1765 1560 1664 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.2 13.2 0.0 1.9 18.6 0.3 6.9 0.3 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.2 13.2 0.0 1.9 18.6 0.3 6.9 0.3 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 311 711 628 403 713 606 1125 609 538 574 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.04 0.64 0.00 0.22 0.81 0.02 0.41 0.02 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1048 885 783 1139 885 753 1125 609 538 574 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9 15.3 0.0 11.0 16.9 11.4 15.9 13.8 0.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.3 4.8 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.1 5.6 0.0 0.7 8.4 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 12.0 16.4 0.0 11.3 21.6 11.4 17.1 13.8 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp LOS B B B C B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 466 681 475 158 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 20.1 17.0 16.3 Approach LOS B C B B Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.0 29.7 8.1 29.8 26.0 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 22.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 15.2 3.9 20.6 8.9 6.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.4 0.2 5.2 2.3 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 TWSC5: Traffic Way & Branch St/Branch 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 9 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. HCM 2010 TWSC6: Bridge & Branch 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 10 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 2.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 46 428 50 120 514 6 0 0 88 0 0 60 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 45 - - 200 -------0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 47 437 51 122 524 6 0 0 90 0 0 61 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 531 0 0 488 0 0 1328 1332 462 1328 1354 528 Stage 1 ------556556-772772- Stage 2 ------772776-556582- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1036 - - 1075 - - 132 154 600 132 150 550 Stage 1 ------515513-392409- Stage 2 ------392407-515499- Time blocked-Platoon, % - - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1036 - - 1075 - - 103 130 600 99 127 550 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------103130-99127- Stage 1 ------492490-374363- Stage 2 ------309361-418476- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 1.6 12.1 12.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)600 1036 - - 1075 - - 550 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.15 0.045 - - 0.114 - - 0.111 HCM Control Delay (s)12.1 8.64 - - 8.779 - - 12.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.524 0.142 - - 0.384 - - 0.373 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary7: Mason & Branch 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 11 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)55 380 52 74 485 16 30 59 158 17 59 80 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 176.5 176.5 180.0 176.5 176.5 180.0 180.0 176.5 176.5 180.0 176.5 180.0 Lanes 110110011010 Cap, veh/h 68 581 79 96 677 22 238 417 544 93 250 296 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.40 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 1681 1520 208 1681 1700 55 435 1150 1500 76 690 815 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 56 0 441 76 0 511 91 0 161 159 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1681 0 1728 1681 0 1755 1586 0 1500 1581 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.0 0.0 12.8 2.7 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.0 0.0 12.8 2.7 0.0 15.0 2.1 0.0 4.6 4.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.03 0.34 1.00 0.11 0.52 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 68 0 660 96 0 699 655 0 544 639 0 0 V/C Ratio(X)0.82 0.00 0.67 0.79 0.00 0.73 0.14 0.00 0.30 0.25 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 249 0 1254 333 0 1361 655 0 544 639 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 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 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 15.5 28.2 0.0 15.5 13.0 0.0 13.8 13.6 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.6 0.0 1.2 13.6 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.2 0.0 5.2 1.5 0.0 6.3 0.9 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 49.4 0.0 16.7 41.9 0.0 17.0 13.4 0.0 15.2 14.6 0.0 0.0 Lane Grp LOS D B D B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 497 587 252 159 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.4 20.2 14.5 14.6 Approach LOS C C B B Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.5 27.2 7.5 28.2 26.0 26.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 44.0 12.0 47.0 22.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 14.8 4.7 17.0 6.6 6.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.1 0.1 7.2 1.8 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.7 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 TWSC7: Mason & Branch 10/9/2015 Base PM 9/25/2015 Baseline PM Synchro 8 Report OM Page 12 Two Way Analysis cannot be performed on Signalized Intersection. Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Existing AM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1815Minor St. Volume: 58Warrant Met?: No 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Existing PM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1786Minor St. Volume: 122Warrant Met?: Yes 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Existing Plus Project AM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1843Minor St. Volume: 59Warrant Met?: No 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Existing Plus Project PM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1815Minor St. Volume: 123Warrant Met?: Yes 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Approved Pending AM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1839Minor St. Volume: 58Warrant Met?: No 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Approved Pending PM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1810Minor St. Volume: 122Warrant Met?: Yes 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Approved Pending Plus Project AM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1867Minor St. Volume: 59Warrant Met?:No 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Approved Pending Plus Project PM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 1839Minor St. Volume: 123Warrant Met?:Yes 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Cumulative AM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 2065Minor St. Volume: 75Warrant Met?: No 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Cumulative PM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 2120Minor St. Volume: 150Warrant Met?: Yes 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Cumulative Plus Project AM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 2093Minor St. Volume: 76Warrant Met?:No 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach Major Street Total of Both Approaches Minor Street High Volume Approach500 420 500 505 500 N/A600 360 600 460 600 590700 325 700 420 700 540800 285 800 360 800 475900 245 900 325 900 4251000 200 1000 285 1000 3701100 175 1100 250 1100 3401200 150 1200 220 1200 2851300 130 1300 190 1300 2501400 120 1400 155 1400 2201500 100 1500 145 1500 1801600 100 1600 120 1600 1701700 100 1700 100 1650 1501800 100 1800 100 1800 150 * Note: Values in Table are approximate, actual curves based upon 2nd order polynomial equation Both 1 Lane Approaches 2 or more Lane and One Lane Approaches Both 2 or more Lane Approaches 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Minor Street (High Volume Approach) - VPH Peak Hour Volume (Warrant 3) Urban Areas NOTE:150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREETAPPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWERTHRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Cumulative Plus Project PM Number of LanesMajor Approach Grand Ave/Branch St 2Minor Approach Branch St 1 Major St. Volume: 2149Minor St. Volume: 151Warrant Met?:Yes 0400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Major Street (Total of Both Approaches) - VPH 100 Cross Street, Suite 204 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 235-6355 Branch Street Hotel Water Use Analysis September 21, 2015 Introduction This project is a new 51- room hotel in downtown Arroyo Grande. The intent of this analysis is to identify water conservation strategies incorporated into the project and quantify the total anticipated water use. The water use is then compared to an alterne project for the site, a Market Concept. The analysis indicates that the hotel would use less water than the market. Water savings are achieved through a combination of water conserving fixtures, efficient landscape and irrigation, and high-efficiency washing machines. In addition, use of gray water and/or rainwater catchment will be considered as the project progresses. Assumptions In order to quantify the annual water use, we made certain assumptions, based on the drawings and discussion with the project team. For indoor water use, we made the following assumptions for occupants, average per day: Employees: 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) Hotel guests: 57 (51 rooms x 1.4 occupants/room x 80% occupancy rate) Visitors: 10 (for occasional meetings or to visit hotel guests) Retail customers: 0 Limited food service for daily guest breakfast and occasional evening appetizers, using catering kitchen. As the project progresses, the design team can further refine the assumptions and calculations generated in this report. Strategies The following strategies include a brief description and anticipated water savings. Strategy 1: Water Conserving Fixtures The California standard for indoor water use is already 20% below baseline, but ultra low-flow fixtures can further reduce water use. In addition, low-flow showers and lavatories decrease hot water demand. ATTACHMENT F Branch Street Hotel Water Use Analysis Page 2 Water Flow Total per year Percent Savings Description GPM Standard GPM Proposed Standard Gal/year Proposed Gal/year Lavatory 0.5 0.5 metered 1,597 1,278 Lavatory - Guest Rm 2.2 1.0 228,855 104,025 Mop Sink (cleaning) 2.2 2.2 24,492 24,492 Sink - break room 2.2 1.5 2,008 1,369 Shower - Guest Rm 2.5 2.0 416,100 332,880 TOTAL FLOW 673,051 464,043 31.1% Flush Fixtures GPF GPF Urinal 1.00 0.13 - - Toilet - female 1.60 1.28 10,220 8,176 Toilet - male 1.60 1.28 10,220 8,176 Toilet - Guest Rm 1.60 1.00 166,440 104,025 TOTAL FLUSH 186,880 120,377 35.6% TOTAL WATER USE, Gallons 859,931 584,420 32.0% Water Saved: 32% better than “standard” indoor use, or 275,000 gallons/year. (12% better than CA Green Building Code, or 100,000 gallons per year) Strategy 2: Water Conserving Landscape The landscape has been designed by Firma Landscape Architecture to include drought-tolerant and adapted species, as well as high-efficiency irrigation, reducing the water needed for irrigation. Water Saved: 45% better than baseline irrigation use, or 210,000 gallons per year. Strategy 3: High efficiency washing equipment Laundry will be done onsite and will utilize high-efficiency ozone washing machines. Although ozone washing machines have a somewhat higher first-cost, they use less water and less hot water. In addition, there is no need for bleach with ozone washers, and high-efficiency washing machines reduce dryer demand as well. Water saved: 16% over standard washing machines, or 110,000 gallons/year Alternate Project The total anticipated water use for the hotel, with water conservation strategies, is about 1.7 million gallons of water a year. Branch Street Hotel Water Use Analysis Page 3 Water Use Standard Proposed Indoor Fixtures 859,900 584,400 Irrigation 456,400 247,300 Laundry 670,100 558,200 Food service 307,800 307,800 TOTAL 2,294,200 1,697,700 The previous project approved for this site was a Market Concept. A similar project in northern California, the OxBow Market, has shared their actual water use. Their project is slightly larger than the Branch St. Market would have been, so adjusting for area, the market could be anticipated to use about 2.5 million gallons. Accounting for current plumbing standards with a 20% reduction, use would still be just below 2.0 million gallons. The high water use can be attributed to significant restaurant and beverage service and large volume of retail customers. Market Comparison Annual, gallons OxBow Market, 12,000 SF 2,962,000 Proposed Market, 10,000 SF 2,468,300 Market, w/ 20% reduction for code 1,974,600 Proposed Hotel 1,697,300 Savings for Hotel use 277,300 Summary Based on the analysis above, the Branch Street Hotel, with water conservation strategies, will use less water than the Market Concept proposed on the same site. Respectfully Submitted, Andrea Pease, AIA, LEED AP Principal Matt Downing From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Matthew, John Dixon Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:25 PM Matt Downing Hotel? Let me start by saying ... this is a really bad idea. Please explain to me how this helps the quaint old town feel of Arroyo Grande East. How does it serve the residents of this area? I don't see any upside to this project at all for the residents of Old Town Arroyo Grande. There is plenty of room for a hotel west of the Freeway. This is also not a good idea for all the students of the Middle School that would have to walk by "who knows who" every day. I think a few more bed and breakfasts would be a better idea. A store or something that serves the residents is a much better idea than something that serves a corporation or the people on the city council attached to NKT Commercial. I'm sure that I'm not the only resident that thinks this is a bad idea. It should not go through. Period! John Dixon 523 Crown Hill st. Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420 ATTACHMENT 7 Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Ligia Friday, November 20, 2015 2:32 PM Teresa McClish AGGB Chamber of Commerce: New Proposed Village Inn New Proposed Village lnn.pdf Nevv Proposed Village Inn located on East Branch St. For any questions on this project please contact: Nick Tompkins NKT Commercial Office: 805-541-9004 x204 T cresa McClish Arroyo Grande Community Development Director Regards, Ligia Zavala Office Manager/South County Regional Center Arroyo Grande & Grover Beach Chamber of Commerce 800 A West Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805)489-1488 (805)489-2239 Fax Save the Date for our Annual Installation Dinner Thursday,january 28, 2016 Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Cc: Eddie Adams Friday, November 20, 2015 2:42 PM Ligia nick@nktcommercial.com; Teresa McClish Subject: Re: AGGB Chamber of Commerce: New Proposed Village Inn Wow, that would be great! That would really help the village stay relevant. So many business in the village are barely surviving or even failing right now. There's just not enough regular and consistent consumer demand. The village really needs this Inn. On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Ligia wrote: New Proposed Village Inn located on East Branch St. For any questions on this project please contact: Nick Tompkins NKT Commercial Office: 805-541-9004 x204 Teresa McClish Arroyo Grande Community Development Director Regards, Ligia Zavala 1 Office Manager/South County Regional Center Arroyo Grande & Grover Beach Chamber of Commerce 800 A West Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805)489-1488 (805)489-2239 Fax Save the Date for our Annual Installation Dinner Thursday,January 28, 2016 Eddie Adams Attorney At Law 892 W. Grand Ave. Grover Beach, CA 93433 Tele. (805) 614-4264 email: :'::'~=_;_--:;0~:.o..~~~~~300-"-'~~ website: -"-"_c~~~f:±~~~'-'-:2:~ 2 Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Ms McClish, Friday, November 20, 2015 3:36 PM Teresa McClish New village hotel What happened to the market?? Mark London 1 Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Ms. McClish, j hilford Friday, November 20, 2015 5:38 PM Teresa McClish no to hotel on East Branch Street Please forgive me if I am sending this message to the wrong party; I saw no avenue for public comment on the Planning Division website. As a homeowner in Arroyo Grande Village, as well as a lifelong resident of San Luis Obispo County, I implore the Commission to reject the ludicrous proposal for a "boutique" hotel on East Branch Street. This proposal is yet another example of the greed and sprawl that are plaguing an idyllic locale that I barely recognize from my youth (and I'm only 40 years old). In short, this proposal is completely out of place in our neighborhood. For one, East Branch Street is plagued with traffic on most days due to its being the lone realistic thoroughfare between the freeway and the eastern portion of the City. A 51-room hotel definitely won't help. The impending El Nino will, by all accounts I've read, do very little to assuage the current water crisis. We did our part by tearing out our lawn and adding xeriscape. I've seen many of my neighbors do the same. A 1.7-million- gallon-per-year leak in our water supply (provided for people who don't even live in our community!) is nothing short of a slap in the face to responsible community members who are doing their part. Our tap water started tasting horrible this summer; I'm sure it's in no small part due to the low levels in Lopez Lake. It seems that every week, I read one article about how local residents need to conserve, followed by another detailing another ridiculous large- scale development project. Where is the logic? A hotel will be nothing but detrimental to the small-town character of East Branch Street -one of the few areas in our county that still offer a low-key but highly visitable walkable downtown feel. Downtown San Luis is lost, as far as I'm concerned -sold away to developers and the interests of short-term visitors. Please don't let the same fate befall our gem of a neighborhood. I'll say nothing about the fact that the Village lacks a viable grocery store, forcing us to drive to strip malls. I realize the fate of the previously proposed grocery store at the location (which I just learned about in today's Tribune article) is out of the hands of the Planning Commission. I'm sure that project would have led to some of the same issues that would be brought about by a hotel (traffic, character, etc.). However, at least it would benefit the actual people who live in the neighborhood. A hotel at this site is, again, a slap in the face. I am appalled to see the charm and character of my beloved county succumbing to the moneyed interests of a few developers and investors in exchange for a few dollars of bed tax. It's happening in Pismo Beach and San Luis as we speak. Please do not let it happen to Arroyo Grande. I will do my best to make it to the Planning Commission hearing on December 1. If I am unable, I ask that the Commission take the comments in this email into account when vetting this unconscionable proposal. Respectfully yours, Jason Hilford Arroyo Grande Village 1 Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi, Jarratt Trudy Saturday, November 21, 2015 11 :45 AM Teresa McClish The proposed "Village Inn" I want to express my support for the proposed Village Inn on East Branch Street. The old Monterey style/Wawona Hotel historical look is lovely. I was pleased to learn that there will be a walking path going to the creek to take advantage of the overlooked beauty of the site, and that the developer is providing more parking than required. I think AG will benefit from an upscale boutique Inn located in the Village. Currently we do not have adequate accommodations for guests in the Village area. An upscale Inn is a logical addition to the beautiful changes made to the Village over recent years. Our home is located just outside the Village, so when our entire (extended) family comes for the holidays and family events, we are always looking for very nice, close-by accommodations. The location of this upscale Inn would be very welcome. Trudy Jarratt Arroyo Grande, CA 1 Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Andrea Chavez Saturday, November 21, 2015 12:48 PM Teresa McClish Village Inn I personally think this would be a wonderful addition to our Village. Visitors could stay dose, walk to our restaurants and shop at our stores right in the Village. They would be in close proximity to our wineries and tasting rooms both in the AG Valley and Edna Valley. It seems like a perfect fit for our community! .Jlnarea S Cliavez :M.anager, :fresli :J{arvest 'I'a{f£y :Farms :fresfi :Harvest: 805.489.5401 :Mo/Ji{e: WfioCesa{e: .. 'fax: 805.489.5400 805.489.5201 2900 .£oyez Drive T.O. 13ox 360 .. 'Arroyo <;;ranae, C.'A 93421 "Your [oca{ yroauce source" Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Dale Liscombe Saturday, November 21, 2015 5:42 PM Teresa McClish village inn I received a warning from the village of Arroyo Grande that I was a unit called three over the base line. It did not say three percent but three units. I am trying to figure out if whatever that means applies to this new hotel and its patrons. Will they be advised of this water conservation effort or will they let the shower run forever until it gets warm or completely forget about it being on and go out for a bite to eat? Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Sent from Windows Mail madelyn koontz Sunday, November 22, 2015 6:00 PM Teresa McClish in response to the new proposed village Inn, the water will come from where?? Arroyo Grande is already on strict water restriction. thoughts?? Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Teresa, David Block Monday, November 23, 2015 11 :40 AM Teresa McClish Questions about the proposed Village Inn in AG I recently saw the announcement and artist rendering of the new proposed Village Inn. I think that a small well designed overnight facility is overdue for the village area of Arroyo Grande. I work for Talley Vineyards and we entertain guests very frequently and often accommodate them in local hotels both in Arroyo Grande and Pismo Beach. It would be terrific to have this option so close to the winery. My main concern is the traffic. We have such a small corridor that travels through our village area and it is often difficult to travel through the downtown area to get to the 101 or on further down Grand A venue. Even though this project is small in scale it will create more traffic in a part of the Village that can't handle it currently. Do you know if there are plans to help the flow of traffic in that area and should the developers bear that responsibility? I would greatly appreciate hearing about the plans for the increased traffic. Thank you. David Block Talley Vineyards, National Sales Manager (805) 489-0446 Teresa McClish From: Sent: To: Subject: Toni Pelletier Monday, November 23, 2015 5:34 PM Teresa McClish New hotel Hi Teresa, I personally like the hotel, but I hope you will NOT allow it to have a salon of any type in it. I have started my petition and will also e-mail Nick. Sorry to start in again and already but ... I'm only protecting the other 13 salons. :). Thank you Toni Pelletier/Village Salon 1