Loading...
E. Cherry Executive SummaryEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Executive Summary and impact summary table is to provide the reader with a brief overview of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project), the anticipated environmental effects, and the potential mitigation measures that could reduce the severity of the impacts associated with the Project. The City of Arroyo Grande (City), acting as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address the potential environmental impacts of the Project This EIR is an informational document that is being used by the general public and governmental agencies to review and evaluate the Project. The reader should not rely exclusively on the Executive Summary as the sole basis forjudgment of the Project and its alternatives. The complete EIR should be consulted for specific information about the environmental effects and the implementation of related mitigation measures. ES -2 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Project site consists of three adjacent parcels under separate ownerships referred to as Subarea I — a 2.16 -acre plot owned by SRK Hotels; Subarea 2 — a 11.62 -acre plot owned by Mangano Homes, Inc.; and Subarea 3 — a 1.51 -acre plot owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA). In total, the Project includes 15.29 acres at the southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. Subarea 1 is currently zoned as Traffic Way Mixed -Use (TMU) for the use of automobile sale and services. Subarea 2 remains undeveloped and has historically been zoned for agricultural production. Subarea 3, however, has a deep rooted history dating back to its original purchase in the 1920s by the JWA and until 2011, has been host to a variety of uses. The Project is a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment and Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The intent of the Project is to develop a specific pian with mixed use and residential uses along the frontage of East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way, with the inclusion of a circulation network consisting of collector streets and residential alleys. Subarea 1 of the Project site would be developed with a 90- to 100 -room hotel and restaurant use under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Project envisions the development of Subarea 2 for residential use as a 60 -lot subdivision with 58 single-family Fast Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES -1 Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY residential lots along with a 0.35 -acre neighborhood park that also acts as a drainage basin. The proposed development of Subarea 3 would provide for a mix of retail, residential and visitor serving uses that expresses the ideologies of the JWA and is both compatible with and supports the local community. ES -3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCOPE This FIR discusses the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Project and identifies mitigation measures for impacts found to be potentially significant. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study as well as agency and public input received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period was used to determine the scope of the analysis for this EIR. For each impact identified in this EIR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact is provided. Impacts are categorized in one of the following categories: • A beneficial impact would result when the proposed project would have a positive effect on the natural or human environment and no mitigation would be required. • No impact would result when no adverse change in the environment is expected; no mitigation would be required. • A less than significant impact would not cause a substantial change in the environment, although an adverse change in the environment may occur; only compliance with standard regulatory conditions would be required. • A less than significant with mitigation impact could have a substantial adverse impact on the environment but would be reduced to a less -than -significant level through successful implementation of identified mitigation measures. • Asignificant and unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level, even after all feasible mitigation measures have been implemented to reduce the impact to the extent possible. Determinations of significance levels in the EIR are made based on impact significance criteria and CEQA Guidelines for each environmental resource. The EIR also presents alternatives to the Project, which include the No Project Alternative, and the Reduced Development Alternative, and a project -level assessment of the impacts ES -2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY that would be associated with the implementation of each. Finally, cumulative impacts associated with a particular resource are assessed in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this EIR. ES -4 NOTICE of PREPARATION The contents of this EIR were established based on the findings in the NOP and attached materials, as well as public and agency input during the scoping period. A copy of the NOP and comments received during the NOP review period are included in Appendix B. In accordance with Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the NOP was prepared and distributed to responsible and affected agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review. The public review period ,for the NOP began on October 20, 2015, and ended on November 18, 2015. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse at the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to solicit statewide agency participation in determining the scope of the EIR. ES -5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS The significance of each impact resulting from implementation of the Project has been determined according to CEQA thresholds. Table ES -1 presents a summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and residual significance of those impacts from implementation of the Project. In summary, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable Project - level and cumulative impacts to City intersections related to transportation and traffic. ES -6 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS In order to assess cumulative impacts, this EIR uses a combination of the list method and General Plan projection method approaches that includes programs included in the City's General Plan as well as specific past, present, and probable future projects that are reasonably foreseeable that could produce related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). Cumulative impacts for more complex resource sections such as Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, Transportation and Traffic, and hydrology and Water Quality, have been assessed in regards to General Plan build -out projections for the City. Cumulative impacts associated with a particular resource are assessed in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this EIR. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES -3 Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines state that an "EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (Section 15126.6). This EIR discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative, and alternatives that were considered and discarded. Each of these considers the ability of a particular alternative to substantially reduce or eliminate the Project's significant environmental impacts, while still meeting basic Project objectives. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR include: CEQA "No Project" Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be approved. This alternative could result in two possible outcomes. Under one possible outcome, the No Project Alternative would be a continuation of the existing setting. The Project site would remain vacant for the foreseeable future and no development would occur. A second possible outcome of the No Project Alternative would be development of the Project site in accordance with the City's existing zoning and General Plan/Land Use Map. Overall, neither outcome of the No Project Alternative would achieve the stated Project objectives. The No Project Alternative would reduce the magnitude of impacts to traffic and agricultural resources; however, these impacts could still potentially be significant under the No Project Alternative. Reduced Development Alternative The Reduced Development Alternative is designed to meet the central objectives of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, namely, to provide for historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that both complement and augment the existing uses in the City. However, this alternative would reduce the scale and intensity of proposed development, and associated trip generation and intersection congestion, air pollutants, and GHG emissions generated by new source of automobile trips. Overall, this alternative would reduce impacts to transportation, air quality and GHG emissions. However, LOS impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street would continue to be significant and unavoidable, as they are under the proposed Project. ES -4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES -8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 5-1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and the analyzed alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Table ES -2 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and the analyzed alternatives. Of the alternatives considered, the No Project Alternative would result in the fewest impacts as no development would occur within Subareas 2 and 3; therefore, it is environmentally superior. Of the development alternatives, the Reduced Development Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior development alternative since impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, except for anticipated significant and unavoidable long-term impacts to traffic and transportation at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection. With implementation of this alternative, impacts to the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection would be reduced, although impacts to this intersection would not be fully reduced to a less than significant level. As this alternative would reduce all but one impact to a less than significant level with required mitigation., the Reduced Development Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES -5 Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES -1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts 3.1 Aesthetics Impact VIS -1. Implementation of the Project would. MM VIS -I a Less than Significant result in adverse effects to the existing scenic with Mitigation resources present at the site and surrounding areas. Impact VIS -2. The proposed Project would result in None required Less than Significant a significant change in the existing visual characteristics of the site. Impact VIS -3. Construction of the Project would None required Less than Significant create short-term disruption of scenic resources for the residents and travelers along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. Impact VIS -4. The proposed Project would introduce MM VIS -4a Less than Significant new sources of nighttime fight, impacting the quality with Mitigation of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light. 3.2 Agriculture Impact AG -I. The proposed Project would result in None required Less than Significant the direct conversion of a site that includes agricultural capabilities, including prime soils and historic agricultural production. However, because of the limited size of the site, and its context amidst adjacent non-agricultural land uses, conversion of the site to non-agricultural uses is considered less than significant based on the LESA methodology. Impact AG -2. The proposed Project would result in MM AG -2a Less than Significant the conversion of agricultural land uses within the with Mitigation Project site, creating potentially significant impacts with respect to consistency with City Goal Agl and related policies in the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element, which seek protection of prime farmland. 3.3 Air Quality -GHG Impact AQ 1. The proposed Project would result in MM AQ -la Less than Significant potentially significant short-term construction- MM AQ -Ib with Mitigation related air quality impacts from dust and air pollutant MM AQ-Ic emissions generated by grading and construction MM AQ -Id. equipment operation. Impact AQ -2. The proposed Project would result in MM AQ -2a Significant and potentially significant long-term operation -related air MM AQ -2b Unavoidable quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile emissions. ImpactAQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions MM AQ -3a Less than Significant during initial construction and long-term operation of MM AQ -3b with Mitigation the proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive receptors to such emissions. ES -6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Draft EIR EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY Table ES -1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impact AQ -5. The proposed Project is potentially MM AQ -2b Significant and inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo MM AQ -5a Unavoidable APCD's 2001 Clean Air Plan. MM HAZ-2c 3.4 Biological Resources MM HAZ-4d Impact BIO -1. Project construction and major MM 1310 -la Less than Significant alteration of the Project site would result in a loss of with Mitigation low -value agricultural and disturbed ruderal habitats ! and potential indirect impacts to the adjacent oak woodland habitat. Impact BIO -2. Project construction and operation has MM BI0-2a Less than Significant the potential to create significant impacts to the with Mitigation movement of native resident or migratory wildlife on the Project site. Impact BIO -3. The Project has the potential. to None required Less than Significant conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting '.. biological resources. R G Nava rdc an7i Navardnne MaYarialc Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the proposed None required Less than Significant Project would include the use of small quantities of hazardous materials during construction and operation, but would not could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the proposed MM HAZ-2a Less than Significant Project could create a significant hazard to the public MM HAZ-2b with Mitigation or the environment through reasonably foreseeable MM HAZ-2c 1 upset and accident conditions involving the release MM HAZ-4d of hazardous materials into the environment. MM HAZ-4e ''. Impact IIAZ-3. The proposed Project would have a None required Less than Significant low potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an'. existing or proposed school. :. Impact HA7-4. Implementation of the proposed :. MM RAZ -4a Less than Significant Project could expose people or structures to a MM RAZ -4b '.. with Mitigation '.. significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving MM IIAZ-4c wildland fire, including where wildlands are adjacent MM HAZ-4d to urbanized areas or where residences are MM HAZ-4e intermixed with wildlands. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES -7 Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES -1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impact HYD -1. Construction of the proposed Project MM HYD -1a has the potential to significantly impact surface water NIM HYD -lb quality from increased erosion, sedimentation and MM HYD -lc polluted runoff. MM HYD -1 d Impact HYD -2. Irrigation of the proposed cultural None Required gardens on Subarea 3 would draw water from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, resulting in incremental impacts to groundwater resources impact HYD -3. The proposed Project would alter MM HYD -3a existing onsite drainage systems, resulting in MM HYD -3b potential impacts to erosion, siltation, and flooding MM HYD -3c on and off the site. Impact IIYD-4. The proposed Project is located None required outside a 100 -year flood hazard area and presents less than significant issues regarding onsite flood hazards. Impact HYD -5. The proposed Project site is located None required at base of an adjacent natural hillside that has the potential to result in a mudflow which would directly inundate the Project development. Impact LU -1. The proposed Project would not result None required in the physical divide of an established community. MM NOI-I a with Mitigation Impact LU -2. The proposed Project would not None required conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans as none exist within the Project vicinity. _ Impact LU -3. The site design of the proposed Project MM VIS -la is potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies MM VIS -4a designed to protect public views, recreational MM AG -la resources, and reduce the threat to new developments MM IIAZ-4a-e from fire. MM RFC -la Less 1 tial Ngmneant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant No Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact NOI-1. Short-term construction activities MM TRANS -la Less than Significant would temporarily generate adverse noise and MM NOI-I a with Mitigation vibration levels that would exceed thresholds MM NOI-16 established in the City's General Plan Noise Element. Impact NOf- 2. Long-term noise impacts from None required Less than Significant vehicle traffic associated with the Project would result in increased noise levels to sensitive receptors of up to 1.4 CNEL; however, this increase would be indiscernible to the human ear and not exceed federal, state, or City noise criteria. ES -8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES -1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impact NOI-3. Long-term operational noise impacts MM NOI-3a Loss than Significant associated with the Project from the operation of MM NOI-3b with Mitigation stationary equipment and site maintenance activities could result in the exceedance of thresholds in the City's General Plan Noise Element. 3.9 Recreation Impact REC-1. The proposed Project would increase MM REC-la Less Than Significant the use of and need for recreational facilities, with Mitigation resulting in potential increase physical deterioration MM TRANS -3b Unavoidable of existing recreational facilities. Impact RFC -2. The proposed Project includes the None required Less than Significant construction of recreational facilities which may have an adverse effect on the physical environment. 3.10 Transportation and Traffic Impact TRANS -1. Project construction activities MM TRANS -la ,Less than Significant would potentially create short-term traffic impacts with Mitigation due to congestion from construction vehicles (e.g., construction trucks, construction worker vehicles, equipment, etc.), traffic lane and sidewalk closures, and loss of on -street parking. Impact TRANS -2. Project generated traffic would MM TRANS -2a Less than Significant potentially cause the LOS at the Fair Oaks with Mitigation Avenue/Traffic Way intersection to deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable LOS in both the AM and PM peak hours, causing a significant impact. With installation of a traffic signal, intersection LOS would be maintained at acceptable LOS. Impact TRANS -3. Project generated traffic would MM TRANS -3a Significant and potentially cause delays at the East Grand MM TRANS -3b Unavoidable Avenue/West Branch Street intersection which operates at unacceptable LOS F to increase by more than 5 seconds in excess of City standards in both the AM and PM peak hours, causing a significant impact. There are no feasible funded or scheduled mitigation measures available to reduce this impact to a less than significant Level consistent with the requirements of City General Plan Policy CT2-1 which requires improvement to LOS D. - Impact TRANS -R. Project generated traffic would None required Less than Significant potentially cause incremental increases in delays at the Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound off-ramp/Orchard Avenue intersection which operates at unacceptable LOS E during AM peak hour. However, increased delays would not exceed City standards. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES -9 Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES -i. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impact TRANS -S. The proposed Project would MIM TRANS -5a Less than Significant potentially create conflicts with turning movements (Recommended) at driveways and intersections on the Project site. Impact TRANS -6. The proposed Project would None required Less than Significant potentially generate and attract trips to and from U.S. Highway 101, incrementally increasing congestion of the region's main highway. Impact TRANS -7. The proposed Project would MM AQ -5a potentially increase demand for transit services in an underserved area, presenting a barrier to both transit dependent and non -transit dependent households for using transit. Impact UT -1. Implementation of the proposed None required Project would not exceed the wastewater capacity of the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant. Impact UT -2. The proposed Project would require MM AQ -la the expansion of existing utility infrastructure MM AQ -lb including water, sewer, gas and electricity into the MM AQ -lc site; the construction of which would cause less than MM AQ-ld significant environmental effects. MM 13I0-1 a MM NOI-la MM NOI-lb Impact UT -3. Implementation of the Project would None required result in as overall decrease in water demand compared to historic water demand and would not significantly impact the City's water supply or water infrastructure. Impact UT -4. The proposed Project would generate None required additional solid waste needing disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill; however, impacts would be less than significant. Impact UT -5. The proposed Project would increase None required demand for fire protection, police protection, and public school services. ES -10 Less than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant -. Less Than Significant Less Than Significant East Cherry Avenue Specific Plat Draft EIb EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES -2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Aesthetics Less than Significant Less (Less than with Mitigation Significant) Agricultural Resources Less than Significant Less (Less than with Mitigation Significant with Mitigation) Air Quality & GHG Less than Significant Less (Less than Emissions with Mitigation Significant) Biological Resources Less than Significant Less (Less than with Mitigation Significant) Hazards & Hazardous Less than Significant Similar (Less than Materials with Mitigation Significant) Hydrology and Water Less than Significant Less (Less than !. Quality with Mitigation Significant) Land Use Less than Significant Less (Less than Less than Significant with Mitigation Significant) Noise Less than Significant Less (Less than with Mitigation Significant) Recreation Less than Significant Less (Less than with Mitigation Transportation & Significant and Traffic Unavoidable Utilities & Public Less than Significant Services with Mitigation Project Objectives Yes Met? Less (No Impact) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Slightly Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Less (Significant and Less (Significant and Unavoidable) Unavoidable) Less (Less than Slightly Less (Less than Significant) Significant with _.. Mitigation) __.. No. Yes East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES -11 Draft FIR