Loading...
07.a. E. Cherry Ave. Specific Plan AttachmentsVomni • means ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Technical Memorandum To: City of Arroyo Grande Date: August 31, 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 Attn: Jim Garing, P.E., Interim City Engineer Project: E. Cherry Ave. Specific Plan From: Nate Stong, P.E Re: Subarea 1 Access, Circulation & Job No.: 65-1275-35 (07) Parking Study Cc: File No.: C2089MEM003.DOC The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate site access, onsite circulation and parking requirements for Subarea 1 of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) in the City of Arroyo Grande. The Project as a whole is made up of five parcels totaling approximately 15.29 acres and is located on the south side of East Cherry Avenue east of Traffic Way as shown on Figure 1. Subarea 1 consists of three parcels totaling 2.16 acres located at the southeast corner of Traffic Way and E. Cherry Avenue, currently zoned "Traffic Way Mixed Use" (D-2.11) with a General Plan Land Use Designation of "Mixed Use." It is currently proposed to construct a 90-100 room hotel and up to a 4,000 square foot restaurant within Subarea 1. Figure 1: Vicinity Map The Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is currently undergoing consideration by the City includes mitigation measure "MM TRANS -5a" to address access considerations to/from Subarea 1. The measure states: "As part of review of permits for development of Subarea 9 and the proposed hotel/restaurant, a circulation study shall be prepared to guide driveway location, 669 Pacific Street I Suite A I San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 p. 805.242.0461 1 omnimeans.com Napa I Redding I Roseville I San Luis Obispo I Visalia I Walnut Creek Auaust 31. 2016 design, and ingress/egress access in such a way to ensure public safety and utility, "This memorandum serves as a circulation study for Subarea 1 and will also evaluate parking requirements for the proposed hotel and restaurant uses. The key issues evaluated in this memorandum are as follow: 1. The recommended locations and allowable ingress/egress turning movements of Subarea 1 site driveways. 2. The amount of parking required based on the proposed uses. 3. Required intersection sight distances at the E. Cherry Avenue intersection with Traffic Way. The evaluation will take into account the functional classification of the roadways, traffic volumes, speeds (posted and observed 85th percentile), and collision history. The following roadways serve, or are planned to serve the Project: Traffic Way is a north/south commercial corridor parallel and east of US 101 and is classified as "Highway/Arterial" in the City General Plan Circulation Element, with a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of E. Cherry Avenue. Traffic Way connects directly with the northbound US 101 off -ramp and southbound US 101 on-ramp near its intersection with S. Traffic Way and connects to W. Branch Street at its north end where it becomes Wesley Street. Traffic Way consists of one through lane in each direction with a center two-way left turn lane, on -street parking and Class II bicycle lanes between S. Traffic Way and E. Cherry Avenue. Between E. Cherry Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue, Traffic Way has two southbound vehicular lanes (the centermost becomes an exclusive left turn lane to E. Cherry Avenue) and one northbound vehicular lane which widens to two lanes at Fair Oaks Avenue. The Class II bike lanes terminate at Fair Oaks Avenue. E. Cherry Avenue is an east/west roadway serving residential and agricultural uses which intersects Traffic Way south of Fair Oaks Avenue and north of the US 101 ramps. E. Cherry Avenue is classified as a "Collector" in the City General Plan with a posted speed limit of 35 mph in the vicinity of Traffic Way. At its intersection with Traffic Way, E. Cherry Avenue is stop -controlled and provides one vehicular lane eastbound and two lanes westbound, narrowing to two lanes approximately 300 feet to the east, at the east end of the Subarea 1 frontage. East of this location, the roadway serves an existing residential subdivision along its north side with driveways served directly from the roadway and the existing agricultural use of Subareas 2 and 3 along the south side. On - street parking is allowed on the unpaved shoulder along the south side. Road "A" is planned to be a north/south collector roadway serving residential and agricultural uses which is proposed to intersect E. Cherry Avenue east of Traffic Way and serve the Subarea 2 residential subdivision and in the future be extended to serve areas currently outside the City limits to the south and east. Road "A" lies along the west boundary of Subarea 2 and can provide an access point for Subarea 1. s August 31, 2016 Subarea 1 Driveway Location The City of Arroyo Grande Standard 1010 "Uniform Design Criteria" Section 4.1.5 contains the following requirements with regard to driveway locations on arterial and collector streets: Driveways on arterial streets must conform to the following requirements: 1. Driveway access must not be located any closer to the adjacent intersection than the stopping sight distance for the posted speed limit of the roadway. 2. Driveways may only be served by a break in a center median when such a break is not detrimental to the traffic flow. 3. The distance between driveways along commercially developed arterial streets and roads shall not be less than 200 -feet. 4. Where possible, driveways shall be located on cross streets or roads, rather than on arterial or collector streets. 5. In new subdivisions, residential driveways along arterial or collector streets is not permitted, these properties may take access from local streets. For the purposes of this analysis, the distances stated above are assumed to be from roadway and driveway centerline. It is anticipated that Subarea 1 will be required to provide at least two driveway connections for emergency vehicle response and that one of the driveways (the secondary non -primary access) will be located on Road "A." A new driveway on Traffic Way would be required to be located at least 250 feet from the intersection of E. Cherry Ave based on the 35 mph posted speed limit and corresponding stopping sight distance provided in City Std 7410. The distance from the centerline of E. Cherry Avenue to the southern edge of the Subarea 1 property along Traffic Way is approximately 275 feet. An existing gas station driveway lies approximately 50 feet further to the south, a distance of approximately 325 feet from E. Cherry Avenue. It is therefore not feasible to locate a driveway on Traffic Way which satisfies both Requirement #1 and Requirement #3 of the City Standards for driveway location. Locating a full -access driveway on Traffic Way is not recommended as stated above, however a partial access driveway may be acceptable to the City. Limiting access to prevent left turns out of a driveway located on Traffic Way would eliminate a movement which requires navigating two streams of traffic and thereby enhance safety. However, prohibiting left turns out of Subarea 1 would require those vehicles wishing to travel southbound to make a u -turn after exiting the driveway. No u -turn movements are allowed on Traffic Way north of Subarea 1 and therefore these vehicles would be required to use side streets or private parking lots to turn around. Using the secondary access on Road "A" to E. Cherry Avenue would provide for the southbound movement, however patrons of the hotel are not expected to be familiar with the area and shouldn't be expected to have to take the rear exit. A partial access driveway on Traffic Way is therefore not recommended. Evaluating an alternative driveway location on E. Cherry Avenue, the proposed intersection of Road "A" with E. Cherry Avenue is approximately 450 feet from Traffic Way as depicted in the Project Subarea 2 Tentative Map prepared by RRM dated October 23, 2015 (see Appendix). Given the posted speed of 35 mph on E. Cherry Avenue and the corresponding stopping sight distance of 250 feet, no Subarea 1 driveway could be located on E. Cherry Avenue for Subarea S August 31, 2016 1 meeting Requirement #1 based on the posted speed limit. The maximum separation which could be achieved is 225 feet which would equate to a speed of approximately 33 mph. Recommendation: Given the lower daily traffic volumes on E. Cherry Avenue (approximately 1,600 average daily traffic (ADT)) relative to Traffic Way (approximately 9,000 ADT) and lower speeds (85th percentile speeds of 36 mph on E. Cherry Avenue' compared to 41 mph on Traffic Way), it is recommended to place the primary driveway serving Subarea 1 on E. Cherry Avenue. It is recommended to located the driveway a minimum of 225 feet but no more than 250 feet from Traffic Way to provide at least 200 feet separation from Road "A." The existing eastbound exclusive left turn lane to the 5 Cities Swim School parking lot is recommended to be converted to a two-way left turn lane terminating at Road "A." Subarea 1 Parking Requirements The proposed Subarea 1 uses include a 4,000 square foot restaurant and 100 room hotel. For restaurants, City code requires 1 space per 100 square feet of publicly accessible space. 40 parking spaces would be required assuming the 4,000 square foot restaurant is the publicly accessible portion. For hotels, one space is required for every room as well as 2 for managers (102 spaces as proposed) bringing the total to 142 parking spaces. City Code §16.56.050 "Common Parking Facilities" allows for a 20% reduction under a Conditional Use Permit with Planning Commission approval on the basis of a mixed use development and internal capture (e.g. hotel guests eating at the restaurant) provided the parking facilities are located within 500 feet of the associated use. The project appears to meet the requirements of this section and as shown on Figure 2 below 122 parking spaces are proposed which equates to a 14% reduction. 3 5F EH,y Monument East Cheny Avenue P_)' I � _ r I i D Porf _ I Q a I � I T qsh L 1� {J (E) Comriierc:ial Use (E) Pv1odbile Fk,rnes Figure 2: Subarea 1 Site Plan ' Speed Survey conducted by the City in 2014 2 2012 Citywide Engineering & Traffic Study Report, Begur Consulting, March 2013. s August 31, 2016 E. Cherry Avenue at Traffic Way Intersection Sight Distance Currently 40 feet of red curb no parking zone is provided on the east side of Traffic Way north of E. Cherry Avenue, as measured from the face of curb on the north side of E. Cherry Avenue. During the public meetings regarding the Project including the Draft and Final EIR, comments were made that the sight distance for vehicles turning from E. Cherry Avenue can obscured by parked vehicles in the area beyond the existing no parking zone. Requests were made to extend the no parking zone. To evaluate sight distance the City Standard for Sight Distance (7410) was applied (included in the Appendix). Figure 4 shows the sight distance triangles corresponding to the posted 35 mile per hour speed limit and 250 foot stopping sight distance. It should be noted that City Standard 7410 places the driver's eye eight feet from the edge of traveled way, which in this case is the left edge of the bicycle lane, requiring the vehicle to pull out beyond the stop bar after coming to a stop to view the roadway beyond the on -street parking area as shown on Figure 3. Figure 3: E. Cherry Avenue at Traffic Way looking North (Source: Google Street View) As can be seen on Figure 4, the northeast corner provides sight distance conforming to City standards when vehicles are parked at the limit of the current red curb and therefore no additional red curb is required north of East Cherry Avenue. New curb and gutter constructed south of E. Cherry Avenue as part of the project should similarly be marked no parking for a distance conforming to City standard. 5 T N V . Figure 3: E. Cherry Avenue at Traffic Way looking North (Source: Google Street View) As can be seen on Figure 4, the northeast corner provides sight distance conforming to City standards when vehicles are parked at the limit of the current red curb and therefore no additional red curb is required north of East Cherry Avenue. New curb and gutter constructed south of E. Cherry Avenue as part of the project should similarly be marked no parking for a distance conforming to City standard. 5 omm Mo4m Car O ro 11 d @AV �l�I�]]H3 'I 1 Owl zoox36a0z\6Eoz\rad\:0 vNv aL:u 910V/7z, y w w F rash F 0 W Y U m W w w w o w wa w o O r moo, • ao� o W � U < O <w w W Q U W ww�> w w0 �- __ f O ao00 ` W H waw 0 = w x o Owl zoox36a0z\6Eoz\rad\:0 vNv aL:u 910V/7z, y ust 31, 2016 I ; IF LU n z Q � � LC Q LU Q m � � CL V) !!. / V) ;�/ -\((§:rS (\!\ E E! - \ §o \\ HN \;//(\( /!§` : )\§.1-H LU n z Q � � LC Q LU Q m � � CL V) b Pood r7rlm1 U W A0M 04l0a1 a z C MEMOM 17 --1 nN W E 0 n= W C0 noW Q) U E 0 U �,0 LU Q Z Q ry O O a W GC Q m W Q OC W U N Q W I \ � NIw SIE I �ojoWoza� o a -_ m os= I w4 I I -I I I I I �S8 i?lVd `d ION I I I S1N3W3n0?1 WI - ?J?J3HO 13Y3� - 1. I II _ , �— I ss I I I 11 uC � g� uo I — — — -------- I 1 7F-� II I J;titw= 1 I I jU I I ' asi �• "�; I xl II Iw ��I l I it I I Of 1I� ! •1; =a , I �I I ;� Iw ° I o w • • li o TM --------- - °„ Iw I s� I� ml •.I i �€? I \ � NIw SIE -I I u �S8 — — — -------- ------ ---- - -- -- - / z I I g I I , � 5 I •:r \•.gin s O I I I I / , • I mMI 31VNiid ..8., A311V =s (�IlHnd) Pi 3nS, !o o a i I <G z oo Go �'2£ 1. 9 Q z a Vic° a o w <$o m °� �d 3f �m� �mm ww 3=z�s X00000 / z I I g I I , � 5 I •:r \•.gin s O JA 5 (�nandl .'v.. avow 4� 0 N N q 4 O O , Q w Q z LU Z LU 0 H U Q LU z w > Q LU U V) Q LU I I I I / , • 31VNiid ..8., A311V (�IlHnd) Pi l----- I ----- I, I xl xl -- m la w. m O 1� 'm"g so�0. � LL a1 1 — _ — _ Q I :I la _ SQ Q I al I& I �� 1 wi I m� IA I� y 51 I; JA 5 (�nandl .'v.. avow 4� 0 N N q 4 O O , Q w Q z LU Z LU 0 H U Q LU z w > Q LU U V) Q LU STREET/STREET INTERSECTION STREET � I 40' H HIGH SPEED INTERSECTIONS 40' —►{ Curb Face (TYP.) STREET/ DRI VEWA Y INTERSECTION STREET ------- I 20' j The space between 2' Q and 8' above street grade must be kept clear (TYP.) EDGE OF TRAVEL WAY SSD SSD ��j�FOFs/Gy�EDGE OF TRAVEL WAY LANE �F S��N� 8' STOPPING SIGHT D/STANCE (SSD) POSTED SPEED LIMIT (MPH) STOPPING D15TANCE (FT) 10 50 15 100 20 125 25 150 30 200 35 250 40 300 45 360 50 430 55 500 W W i h O LW 20' --- R/W Edge of paved Driveway (T),`P.) CITY OFARROYO GRANDE - ENGINEERING STANDARD PLAN 155UE DA TE MARCH 2016 SIGH T D15 TA NCE 7410 5HEET1 OF1 N ^ N m ¢¢UUU ATTACHMENT 2 0 am Q f 2a a��LLg < _ nni o - 4x s f�k'd�a s i w�na. os Q aW<�z s d a_ 1 er a .2-A.1 a W Z O O Q r a W ca a. N 92- 44 W a ce W W N W O - f444 = _ SET s U>a^a <888 - W °'b o3y b 7 _- _-- F— u u`wF W �t o d°� E a� - o i o Me _ ° W Z O O Q r a W ca a. N 92- 44 W a ce W W N W M- g �5uohE �n V a oy. SOW , a o�� o� =Ug�.F�, • • o�E _ ° - a e Ws z 'a: E°e 3I �� s 3°`�oc<¢� z@amu`°e"ees�°sEee; dI I S1N3W3A0?1dWl ?1?J�HOlSb3 I! = T I 1 I rI Iii ; I '�----_-• � o.. 1—; Ii � �>� i I j= _ ue � -__ wr. __ __ _ R^ III _ - � a v✓' 9 I: Lul jIjII II I ❑ o❑ LP LU I — I W II Pn I- - O V13 II - LLJ i I I W .j 288 > i --------�- ----i— U.1 a .--.. ..... ——......-............. —— ..LLI ..... I Q -- — a �= a �'= :W o �' 3=a•4 1E1 I I I I I I I o:SyY2 •�I;. �€ T94k .33 � _ ��i .�a _ I I � i 1 Z:.• U 888�zz dC� w H-2 Z sSzi� i z- > < �3 -- „i'I� •' {,A s' F 4o' u 6i U 2 7 s�u ud 3 2 E3 4 �'_. li, '� ..i •' I 32., z u= a �or<o� {!.L a - it w o3Q`<°$ ? �2 e'o< 0 3 "o ;€ �� o e'a9°g2z; < �. o w << "�' _� 3 F s` =��3 W a e'a i� .... . t , I ladsv1� N % --- I( S1N3W3n0?1dWl NR9HD 1SV3 IAll o '� '4 II � ••I'si _ � I Iw I 11 �I �I rJ �sl � 4 O II^�IZ .•I z -I .I• I III 6z z Y U cz --- s=; — i I� - jI/ jl '55 J3I,I .o j ; LPI �/� i ❑ N ❑ LULU N I I I I I�---------- 1 Orl C II I� u I;- O • to ��I w � '� a•I! I! _.:y• Il lz I`.. ..i I� QLL � �\` I I I•,�—il __ I ( „ Itp; ------- --------- /WM out vNi _----.-.-.- .....................- --- _...... . d u�oo-�� dew ✓f � c m .n � .n � LD w �ozz �otl""�eemi� 1 9 W w O O i o d z �'siuO�uBu�. eewee . w �BBEa°......... . iNVIJ 11 IN 6j 9 •.I I& I I f I• I IIII' ;f i S1N3W�n0?JdWI 21?13H�1Sd3 - ��`--� j L I L O •1� N W n Z ^Q I.y O 0 M, ry Q r� W a m N N W Q W U F— N Q W Y < .AYEuE E 9h .`.o.W cyU3 �bt �'-: ^y-•,FSFF� -�Sy o ^c9 " A °__ a=W z "z5�� o i=3 �I Q T U3 \I.� II \ <w lil I!�? r' - 3o i � IiI ^ Gu 6/III_ ISI <_ 1 1 I I I 1 I � 11L ^_ I I k iu _ I I ^ ^ I I in °u1 "�R 1 .I a 1 ---- - r r I I I I I J °I I !______ ! ________� 1 � 3 1 I L --------- 1 I I I I I I 11 I 1 I I I --__--Iz--- _ l J I -t R - _ _ 1' i •O� b i I ^ a� ial 1 I_ --------- _--� __ -- --------I 1 I - - ,. Y r 1 1 I- _- -- ==_ I3I I I I I I I I G I I I ! ' I m 5-s' o "4 Q LL EE ATTACHMENT 4 E Z I , Z z I I a a o 8 ° .... . dlo?�. �\v✓ =x_-11 1 ��- R Y ie o0o LL< mI J` - vi..i-- ,-�g2&s`3o� "�' NY 1 �cW ill a I I I t - I I I 1 I 11 1 11111 \ __ II I M I II 1 �- I 111 1 IiI I I I I 1111\ 1111 _�- 1I - 1I --I 1 '- 11111 3O ` 1111111 II- III III I , 1 1 � 111 11 IV V 11`t'` III 1 h: 1 1 a� 1 11 III I •^� I I , _ y � IILI 1, ,111 O All 1 1 11111 1 -- 1I 11 1 I I I - I = J 1 ���___- ___� III I - 11 I 1 1 1 v� 2,1 t =J_I II I �y `oO 11111'lIL i 3'//I III 111 s< o 1 ca -00 E L. sm WISM WSM W z W W 1 U W WNo..o� c'os 4k f u`. ARG d3 4 sm eeo u 28 u d ° may g3o Seo i 3uz a= ffi 0. X. o 0 0 0 `< $ 3s's�so e= �W°eo5 u5 O O O0 I 1 a I I u I I = FI F .M I I 'I IM -_ 1- I' lGnend) �• r I 1 .M I 'I IM -_ 1- 1 I I I _ M 1 O 1 , I I zc - 1 a I Qq 1& I - I I I I I pp� _ (Jnond) ..V.. OVMI v I I / s lGnend) �• r —�`� ✓ �a 1 .M IM -_ 1- _ M 1 O 1 It zc - 1 a I Qq MI e i L—I I \ I 1 I � I Q W Q F— w F— Z N W I C) co U Q F - w 7— LU W Q W U F— Q W i/ II I f/ I r; � I I Illi .___ J Imo— w— II m� �� oe IIS oq Ili go\l j\oa Iil 9""� �I °s j i I Q Q z W fL 0 (Y) U Q W Z W Q LU U Q W C 0- Lm =) 80 -(m E WON CD Z LU Z w Q r ry w U E- Q LU ATTACHMENT 5 Garden of Enduring Values Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (AGVJWA) SUBAREA 3 February 18, 2016 AL • an acc}.vd oFflovaing chary uta �i j .d—R.. parh honoring rhe —iv oQ panere i. m g— A—y. Grande 1. �! i/r a P>olic Couc liadroad park n:vaung original Landon 9f rhe J,rQ toot tacks ' ii„ a wail Fum send well For ]andssa \ Yys�< 'f • an ng imgasion pc wacaing . /'.-- • parking,.. - Historic Orchard j rwl� AYr• California Native Garden Japanese Cultural Garden �j LOS! fi �.,�^�,� _ .r. --'•ani Farm Garden Ippci Nak--, Fsm J 1930, N--,,. Femfl�, P --i-2014 Central Coast lapaar c American: Garden ofEnduring Values Garden of Enduring Values Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (AGVJWA) SUBAREA 3 February 19, 2016 ATTACHMENT 7 Date: July 24, 2016 To: Carol Florence Organization: Oasis Associates From: Robert Camacho Title: Project Manager Project Name: East Cherry Ave Entitlement Project Number: 0144 -01 -RS 15 Topic: East Cherry Ave Specific Plan Sub Areas Water Use Assessment Addendum The purpose of this addendum to the "Water Use Assessment" prepared by RRM Design Group, is to demonstrate how the project known as "East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Sub Areas is still in compliance with the statewide emergency conservation requirements, even when compared to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Arroyo Grande. (For methodology on determining residential water usage from Gross Baseline Data, see original report.) (2010 UWMP) 1 (2015 UWMP) Per Capita Per SFR Unit Per Capita Per SFR Unit Calculated Baseline Usage Original Data From 2010 Original Data From 2015 Urban Water Management Urban Water Management 28% Reduction Plan Plan 81 195 Residential Residential Gross (GPCD) Gross (GPCD) (GPCD) Gross *.77 (GPCD) Gross * .77 UWMP Gross Baseline Usage 186 143 191 146.7 UWMP Target Usage 149 115 153 117.8 (2010 UWMP) 1 (2015 UWMP) Per Capita Per SFR Unit Per Capita Per SFR Unit Calculated Baseline Usage 132 317 113 271 28% Reduction 95 228 81 195 Note: Per SFR unit = Per Capita * 2.4 (1111% Below 2015 UWMP) The project's projected water usage (indoor + outdoor) = 204 GPD (see original report for calculation) is still I I% below the 2015 Calculated Residential usage per unit. As stated in the Water Assessment Report dated Nov 2015, the City has used the following ground water sources, Santa Maria Basin and Pismo Formation, as well as Lopez Reservoir as supply sources. However, this project currently is supplied water through an on-site well that provides 35-65 AFY, which is in addition to the city groundwater entitlements. Per the Water Assessment Report dated Nov 2015, Sub Area 2 has an estimated annual water usage of 14.4 AFY, which is about one third of the existing use for farming operations. In addition, the proposed use represents approximately 0.7% of the City's existing 2,106 AFY usage (20 15 UWMP). Sub Area I Sub Area 2 Sub Area 3 Projected Project Area (2010 UWMP) (2015 UWMP) Estimated (Acres +/-) GPD GPD Demand GPD Total Residential (afy per acre) Usage 349 229 204 Indoor Usage 34.8 14.4 20.4 (39%) 136 89 122 Outdoor Usage (61%) 213 140 82 (1111% Below 2015 UWMP) The project's projected water usage (indoor + outdoor) = 204 GPD (see original report for calculation) is still I I% below the 2015 Calculated Residential usage per unit. As stated in the Water Assessment Report dated Nov 2015, the City has used the following ground water sources, Santa Maria Basin and Pismo Formation, as well as Lopez Reservoir as supply sources. However, this project currently is supplied water through an on-site well that provides 35-65 AFY, which is in addition to the city groundwater entitlements. Per the Water Assessment Report dated Nov 2015, Sub Area 2 has an estimated annual water usage of 14.4 AFY, which is about one third of the existing use for farming operations. In addition, the proposed use represents approximately 0.7% of the City's existing 2,106 AFY usage (20 15 UWMP). Sub Area I Sub Area 2 Sub Area 3 15.3 AF 41.3 30.9 10.4 surplus The proposed project is projected to increase the City's Water Supply entitlement by about 10.4 AFY (see above table). This Ag conversation adds approximately 0.3% back to the City's existing 3,813 AFY entitlement (2015 UWMP page 5-2) Projected Area Current Usage Water A (Acres +/-) (* 3 afy per acre) Demand (afy) (afy per acre) 2.2 6.48 13.8 -7.32 11.6 34.8 14.4 20.4 1.5 - 2.7 -2.7 15.3 AF 41.3 30.9 10.4 surplus The proposed project is projected to increase the City's Water Supply entitlement by about 10.4 AFY (see above table). This Ag conversation adds approximately 0.3% back to the City's existing 3,813 AFY entitlement (2015 UWMP page 5-2) East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Sub Area 2 Water Use Assessment - DRAFT Date November 6, 2015 Prepared for: NKT Properties Prepared by: Joshua Roberts, P.E. �QRpEE5S/p,� ROi , <ey CD �N No. 61798 71c # "Tart CIV design 3765 S. Higuera Street, Ste. 102 rrmSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 g re U P 1805-543-1794 I. Background The project site, Specific Plan Subarea 2, is located on the south side of and fronting East Cherry Avenue, east of Traffic Way. Residential subdivisions are located to the north and north east, a mobile home park to the southwest, and undeveloped hillside to the south. Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map Like Subarea 2, Subarea 1 to the southwest has been historically farmed as row crops. Although zoned for mixed-use, it is expected that Subarea 1 will remain in active agricultural for the near term. Subarea 3 located to the northeast, is a vacant, un -farmed, unimproved parcel owned by the Japanese Welfare Association. Tentative JWA plans include future development of the site for senior housing, a cultural center and associated amenities. This report will analyze the estimated water usage for the proposed development of Subarea 2. Development of the 11.6 acres within Subarea 2 includes 59 single family residences, roadways, parkways, a common area, and dedication of about 0.4 acres of land to JWA. East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 1 _ ___ - - M PwCHCC _ _� --- - EASTClQ3lRYAVENIIE IPuaI.Cl C LACE Cal, a„, 6 pn, in �,. Rn �. I= mn In �= is j� zn i, �o In P n In .on I= In v.: in .,�'P„ P In .a. in a,. In a, in ROM " (PIIBtIC� +. nrx i /" •\'�r � u�a I � — ----�UU�. n;F—I IM --- Figure 2 — Proposed Project Site Plan In addition, this report will analyze projected water use for the project; taking into consideration, the historic use of the site and City record data, the 2015 statewide emergency conservation requirements, and site specific design features. The typical lot size within the proposed development is 5,400 SF. This size is consistent with lot sizes in the adjacent neighborhoods, but generally smaller than typical lots on a city-wide basis. As such, indoor and outdoor usage will be separately assessed to determine a more representative total projected water usage. East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 2 II. Historic Use Proiect Site Farm Operations The entirety of Subarea 2 has been historically farmed year-round with a variety of vegetable row crops, such as: broccoli, cabbage, celery, lettuce, etc. Crop rotation has allowed for approximately 2 to 2.25 crops per acre per year. Supplemental overhead spray irrigation for these crops is obtained from an existing on-site water well. The table below lists published UC Davis water use factors for a variety of row crops. Crop Irrigation (Acre Feet/Acre) Broccoli 1.5 to 2.5 Cabbage 1.5 to 2.0 Celery 2.5 to 3.5 Lettuce 1.5 to 2.0 Historic and current annual water use, based on acreage, crop type, irrigation and crop rotation is estimated to be in the range of 35 AFY to 65 AFY. City Water Supply The City of Arroyo Grande has long term allocation entitlements to 3,813 AFY from groundwater and surface supply sources. As of 2010, usage was 73% (2,782 AFY) of the City's entitlement. Source AFY Groundwater—Santa Maria Basin 1,323(35%) Groundwater— Pismo Formation 200(5%) Lopez Reservoir 2,290(60%) Historically, the City has used all of these supply sources to varying degrees, in order to meet customer demand. However, the project site is currently served entirely by an on-site well pumping at 35 AFY to 65 AFY, which is in addition to the City's groundwater entitlements. Consistent with the City's Agricultural Conversion Credit Rule of the 2002 Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin Management Agreement, the net difference in water use due to the conversion of agriculture to residential (typically a net increase in water supply) will be applied to the City's water supply entitlement. The agriculture to residential conversion is elaborated on further in the Discussion section of this report. East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 3 III. City Use Targets Urban Water Management Plan In January 2012 the City of Arroyo Grande adopted the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. The UWMP covers many topics, including supply, reliability, conservation, and historic and projected usage. The UWMP is based on total water production on a per capita basis. A gross baseline per capita usage of 186 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) was established in the UWMP (based on average historic use). The year 2020 and beyond target usage is 149 gpcd; which is an equivalent reduction of 20%. For purposes of this report, the UWMP gross gpcd values have been converted to residential gpcd. Based on residential metered data listed in the UWMP for the years 2005 and 2010, residential usage was 76% and 78% respectively of gross production. To account for non-residential uses and system losses, gross production was multiplied by 77% to determine residential use. UWMP Gross Baseline Usage UWMP Target Usage (2020 and beyond) Governor's Emergency Water Conservation Gross Residential 186 gpcd 143 r-gpcd 149 gpcd 115 r-gpcd In 2015, California water suppliers were required to reduce residential water usage by 25% on average statewide. The actual mandated reduction varies by community from 4% to 36%. The City of Arroyo Grande's target reduction is 28%. It is important to note that these target reductions are tied to current metered use and not UWMP values. The State established residential basis is the average water usage for the months of July through September 2014. The calculated per capita base line usage for Arroyo Grande is 132 r-gpcd (residential gallons per capita per day). For purposes of this report, the per capita use was converted to a per SFR unit value by multiplying it by the persons per household. Based on a City and U.S. Census, there is an average of approximately 2.4 persons per household for single family residences in Arroyo Grande; the calculated baseline equates to about 344 gpd. This value is consistent with historic SFR usage. Actual SFR metered use in 2005 and 2010 were 369 gpd, and 313 gpd respectively. Calculated Baseline Usage 28% Reduction Target Per Capita Per SFR Unit 132 r-gpcd 317 gpd 95 r-gpcd 228 gpd The current reduction target to 95 r-gpcd is about 15% below the UWMP (adjusted) target of 115 r-gpcd. As of July 2015, Arroyo Grande had successfully reached the State mandated target reduction. The actual calculated use was 92 r-gpcd. However, September 2015 usage rose to 100 r-gpcd. East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 4 IV. Indoor vs. Outdoor Water Use Percent Actual Residential 2010 Usage - Indoor & Outdoor Based on 2010 actual values for all residential uses from the UWMP and Waste Water Management Plan (WWMP), the percentage of indoor vs outdoor usage were 39% and 61% respectively. The 2010 data was used to determine indoor vs outdoor usage because reliable domestic metering and waste flows were available for that time period, and the actual values reflect the known decline in residential usage as a result of plumbing retrofits of existing residences for the same period. Total residential usage in 2010 was 349 gpd or 122 per capita. Total Residential Usage (UWMP 2010 Actual) 349 gpd (122 r-gpcd) Indoor Usage (WWMP 2010 Actual) Outdoor Usage (Calculated) 136 gpd (39%) 213 gpd (61%) It is also worth noting that the actual 2010 per capita usage of 122 r-gpcd is similar to and slightly less than the calculated 2015 emergency baseline usage of 132 r-gpcd. As such, it is assumed that water use, especially indoor use, has remained relatively stable from 2010 to 2015; up until the time of the Governor's emergency order. Indoor Usage — Plumbing Retrofit & Water Efficient Appliances The UWMP calculated a water savings of 156 AFY (-24 gpd per residence) resulting from the installation of water conserving showerheads, faucets, pressure regulators, and toilets. This value is consistent with the decline in indoor residential water usage from 159 gpd in 2005 to 136 gpd in 2010. The majority of the conservation was due to installation of ultra-low flow toilets (4,011 installations). For the proposed East Cherry Avenue project all residences will include these water conserving features. In addition, it is anticipated that actual water conservation will be higher when considering the likely use of high efficiency washing machines and dishwashers in all the proposed homes. Outdoor Usage Based on UWMP data, historic outdoor water usage was calculated at 61% of the total household use. This is a relatively high percentage, especially when compared to other urbanized areas, such as the City of San Luis Obispo which has an estimated outdoor usage of 40%. The higher percentage usage in Arroyo Grande can be attributed to generally larger parcel sizes (10,000) and extent of lawn areas; considering lawn/turf require a higher water usage when compared to low -use drought tolerant landscaping. Based on anecdotal evidence, such as brown lawns, etc., it would appear that (following the Governor's order) a majority of the City's residential water use savings has been through significant reductions in landscape usage on existing lots. East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 V. Project Residential Water Use Indoor Water Use In review of the historic data as part of the UWMP and the usage calculations associated with the State emergency order, the projects indoor usage is projected to be consistent with the calculated indoor usage from the UWMP for 2010 of 136 gpd per residence. It is also safe to assume that the indoor usage for each home will be at least 10% more efficient than the typical Arroyo Grande home in 2010, when considering the use of high efficiency washing machines and dishwashers. That equates to an indoor usage of 122 gpd. Indoor Usage (WWMP 2010 Actual) 136 gpd 10% Reduction Credit for Water Efficient Appliances -14 gpd Proposed Indoor Usage 122 gpd (51 per capita) Outdoor Water Use Parcels within the proposed project average 5,400 square feet in size. It is estimated that on average, no more than 50% of the lot area will be landscaped with mostly low and moderate water use landscape. The project will include 'smart' irrigation controllers, which automatically revise watering schedules based on climactic conditions. In addition, the use of lawn/turf is prohibited and high -efficient drip -only irrigation (no overhead spray) systems will be installed. All proposed landscaping will conserve water through the use of drought tolerant varieties. In accordance with the above, it was calculated based on State of California standards for ETWU landscape usage, that landscaping will consume no more than 29,800 gallons per year (average 82 gpd); more than half the historic usage of existing developments in the City. Proposed Outdoor Usage Projected Project Water Usage 82 gpd (34 per capita) The proposed project is estimated to use an average of 204 gpd, which is 11% below the State's Emergency Ordinance. This reduction is achieved through the use of highly water efficient indoor appliances and plumbing fixtures, and low water use landscaping. Residential Water Usage (per unit) 204 gpd (85 per capita) Total Project Residential Usage (59 units) 13.5 AFY East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 VI. Project Common Landscape Water Use Parkway Landscaping The proposed project includes landscaped parkways with a mix of shrubs, trees, groundcover, and mulch/bark. As with the residences, turf is prohibited. The project parkway landscaping totals approximately 27,000 SF. In addition, to restricting turf, it is anticipated that the project will increase the plant layout spacing (reduced plant density); as such a 20% reduction is included in the usage calculations. This is the equivalent of planting at a 5ft spacing, vs a 4ft spacing. This technique not only saves water, but reduces plant competition. Proposed Parkway Usage 0.7 AFY Common Area/Neighborhood Park Landscaping The proposed project includes a partially landscaped common lot intended to serve a mix of recreational activities such as a 'tot -lot' play area, seating, pathways, BBQ, etc. It is assumed that no more than half of the common lot would be landscaped, with increased plant spacing (as described above). The remainder of the lot would have use appropriate covering (DG, mulch, etc). The total common lot is just over a third of an acre at 14,700 SF. Proposed Common Lot Usage 0.2 AFY VII. Total Project Water Use The proposed project is estimated to use a total of 14.4 AFY of water. This usage is approximately one third of the existing use for farm operations. In addition, the proposed use is approximately 0.5% of the City's existing 2,782 AFY (2010) usage. Proposed Project Usage 14.4 AFY (0.5% of 2010 Use) VIII. Estimated Ag Conversion Credit The proposed project is estimated increase the City's water supply entitlement by 20.4 AFY. The Ag Conversation add approximately 0.5% to the City's existing 3,813 AFY entitlement. Ag Conversion Credit (net) East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 20.4 AFY (0.5% entitlement increase) IX. Discussion The attachment section of this report includes calculations, break -downs, and summaries for determining the above values. Indoor vs Outdoor Percentage: The proposed projects indoor vs outdoor use is almost exactly a 60/40 percentage split. This value is consistent with indoor vs outdoor usage for the SFR categories in cities like San Luis Obispo; which by comparison have (on average) similarly sized homes and lots as the proposed East Cherry project. Although, while the proposed east Cherry homes may be similar in nature to homes in San Luis Obispo, there are a number of other factors which influence usage. Proiect Usage vs San Luis Obispo: Per the Governor's order, the City of San Luis Obispo has a baseline water use of 70 r-gpcd and a reduction target to 62 r-gpcd. However, there are a number of factors which influence and should be accounted for in comparing SLO city values to the project. When taking account of the following factors (and their differences), the actual projected per capita usage forthe project is not that dissimilar from San Luis Obispo. The City of SLO has a slightly cooler climate than AG, and as such, ET (evapotranspiration) rates are about 6% lower (49 vs 52), requiring less supplemental irrigation. The City of SLO has a lower percentage of residential water users than AG (60% vs 80%); this difference can skew per capita use and account for about 5% difference in usage. The City of SLO has about 10% more MFR units as compared to AG; this is combined with a typically higher percentage (about 10%) of indoor use vs outdoor. And finally, the City of SLO has a generally younger demographic. After taking into consideration the above factors, the proposed project not only exceeds the State mandate, but is consistent with other local usages. Grey Water SVstems: Although not accounted for in the above project analysis, each home in the proposed project will include pre -plumbing for a grey water system. The effectiveness of grey water systems can vary greatly depending on the type of system installed and the homeowner's application of the system. That said, it is not unreasonable to get 20% or more in conservation from these systems. Agricultural Conversion Credit: The Ag Credit Rule entitles the City of Arroyo Grande to increase urban groundwater use by a factor of three (3) acre-feet per year per acre minus the calculated urban usage per acre per year. Per the City, Specific Plan Subareas 1 and 2 are qualifying "irrigated agricultural land" in the 1979 DWR report. The gross credit for existing use is 34.8 AFY based on the calculation in the Ag Credit Rule. The project's Calculated Urban Usage shall be based on an accepted methodology originally proposed by Todd Engineers which has been employed and accepted by the City on previous projects. Upon completion, the City will track actual annual water use for 3 consecutive years for the project, and calculate the average usage. For purposes of this report, it is assumed that the actual annual use will be consistent with the projected use calculated herein of 14.4 AFY. The net increase in the City's water supply entitlement is approximately 20.4 AFY (0.5% of the existing entitlement). East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 Attachments East Cherry Avenue Water Use Assessment — Nov 2015 Meters Metered Use (AFY) Ave Daily Use (GPD) Notes uroan water ivianagemenc rlan uata Actual 2005 Usage Gross(AFY) Per capita Gross Production 3415 183 Meters Net Use (AFY) Persons per household SFR 5577 2308 369 2.66 Persons Per Household Indoor % Based on 201OActuals MFR 107 288 Per capita Total 5684 2596 408 139 2005 Pop = 16,682 76% 135 Indoor %Based on 201OActuals Of Gross Indoor Usage Savings (estimate) 5908 156 24 Installation of Water Conservation Toilets & Fixtures 16% Ave Reduction Actual 2010 Usage Gross (AFY) Per capita Gross Production 2956 156 Net Use (AFY) Persons per household SFR 5801 2031 313 2.56 Persons Per Household Indoor %Based on 201OActuals MFR 107 278 Per capita Total 5908 2309 349 122 2010 Pop = 16,901 78% i3. Indoor% Based on 2010 Actuals Of Gross Historic Indoor vs Outdoor Usage AAF (gpd) WWMP Actual 2010 5897 804338 136 39% Indoor Use (indoor use) Net Outdoor Use 2010 212 61% Outdoor Use VVVCr11Vri-11CISCHLY VVtlICI 1.V11iC1Vtl L1 VII Persons per household (City & US Census) Per capita B-29-15 Order Baseline Useage 2.4 317 132 Per Water Boards Actual July through Sept 2014 28% Reduction Target 228 95 Calculated July 2015 Reported Actual 92 Per Water Boards Calculated Project Usage Projected Indoor Water Usage Assumed Reduction 10% 122 51 60% Projected Outdoor Water Usage PerE/WUCalculation 82 34 40% TOTAL Project Water Usage 204 85 11% Reduction Emergency Baseline gpd Per Capita 0.23 13.5 AFY/unit AFY Calculated Max Annual Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU): Typical Residential Lot 75% 2025 Moderate 20% 540 lEnter values for vour nroiect in square feet: % SF Total Landscape Area 2700 Tu rf 0 Low (Drought Tolerant) 75% 2025 Moderate 20% 540 High (Thirsty) 5% 1 135 Sports Field 0 Vegetables [check total] Typical Lot Area (SF) Percent Landscape Coverage Plant Spacing Reduction Average Eto for Arroyo Grande - UWMP (in/yr) Mandated ET adjustment factor (Govenor's Order) Conversion factor (gallons to square feet) SLA adjustment factor SLA = Special Landscape Area (sports field, vegetable garden) LA = Landscape Area PF = Plant Factor from WUCOLS III HA = Hydrozone Area square feet IE = Irrigation Efficiency Units = Billing Units or 748 gallons MAWA = (Eto)(0.62)[0.5 * LA + 0.3 * SLA] ETWU = (Eto)(0.62)((PF*HA)/IE+SLA) 100% MAWA Gallons 43,633 MAWA Units 58 ETWU Gallons 29,773 ETWU Units 40 0 GPD AFY 2,700 Gal./5F/YR 5,400 50% 0% 52.13 0.50 0.62 0.30 85% 81.6 0.1 11.0 Calculated Max Annual Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU): Parkway Landscaping )Fnter values far vnur nrniect in sauare feet: % SF Total Landscape Area 26982 Turf 0 Low (Drought Tolerant) 75% 20237 Moderate 25% 6746 High (Thirsty) 0% 10 Sports Field 0 Vegetables 0 [check total] 1009.1 26,982 Area (SF) 26,982 Percent Landscape Coverage 100% Plant Spacing Reduction 20% Average Eto for Arroyo Grande - UWMP (in/yr) 52.13 Mandated ET adjustment factor (B-29-15) 0.50 Conversion factor (gallons to square feet) 0.62 SLA adjustment factor 0.30 SLA = Special Landscape Area (sports field, vegetable garden) LA = Landscape Area PF = Plant Factor from WUCOLS III HA = Hydrozone Area square feet IE = Irrigation Efficiency 85% Units = Billing Units or 748 gallons MAWA = (Eto)(0.62)[0.5 * LA + 0.3 * SLA] ETWU = (Eto)(0.62)((PF*HA)/IE+SLA) MAWA Gallons 436,037 MAWA Units 583 ETWU Gallons225,713 ETWU Units 1 302 GPD 618.4 AFY 0.7 Gal./SF/YR 8.4 Common Lot Landscaping l Enter values for vour oroiect in square feet: % SF Total Landscape Area 7360 Turf 0 Low (Drought Tolerant) 75% 5520 Moderate 20% 1472 High (Thirsty) 5% 368 Sports Field 0 Vegetables 0 [check total] 100% 7,360 Area (SF) 14,719 Percent Landscape Coverage 50% Plant Spacing Reduction 20% Average Eto for Arroyo Grande - UWMP (in/yr) 52.13 Mandated ET adjustment factor (B-29-15) 0.50 Conversion factor (gallons to square feet) 0.62 SLA adjustment factor 0.30 SLA = Special Landscape Area (sports field, vegetable garden) LA = Landscape Area PF = Plant Factor from WUCOLS III HA = Hydrozone Area square feet IE = Irrigation Efficiency 85% Units = Billing Units or 748 gallons MAWA = (Eto)(0.62)[0.5 * LA + 0.3 * SLA] ETWU = (Eto)(0.62)((PF*HA)/IE+SLA) MAWA Gallons 118,932 MAWA Units 159 ETWU Gallons 64,923 ETWU Units 87 GPD 177.9 AFY 0.2 Gal./SF/YR 8.8 ,!! {) !!!!!!!!!!!ff! !!!!!!f!!f!!!! /{{{{{{{{{ i III'' I'll Irl 11 ATTACHMENT 8 RE: development at Traffic and Cherry It is my opinion that this project is too big for all the water issues we are having. A new hote'� is going in with 54 rooms, why do we need 100 more, to keep up with Pismo? Cut down on the amount of this project. I understand tourism is a big money maker, but what about your residents , who are so concerned with dry wells, increased water bills, increased traffic thru the village, besides finding it more and more difficult to find parking in the village. Also, while I'm giving my opinion, keep Camp Arroyo Grande zoned for what is was deed&i as. Not development. Again, water issues primarily. Remember, Lopez is it to 26%. I hope this gets read. Thanks much, Robby Gussman Arroyo Grande RECEIVED AUG 3 1 2016 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 31, 2016 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 300 E. Branch St Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Planning Commission Members: RECEIVED AUG 3 X LG' CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CO,®M!UNITY DEVELOPA4ENT RE: EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 15-001; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 15-001; SPECIFIC PLAN 15-001; VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP 15-001; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-004; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-0011 AND EVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; LOCATION — EAST CHERRY AVENUE AND TRAFFIC WAY; APPLICANTS —SRK HOTELS, MANGANO HOMES, INC., AND ARROY GRANDE VALLEY JAPANESE WELFARE ASSOCIATION. We are opposed to the 60 lot residential subdivision and the 90-100 room hotel and restaurant, which are proposed in this development project. Arroyo Grande has a severe water shortage, which will not be fixed for a very significant amount of time, even if it rained this winter. The water table is so low that it will not be filled to normal in one rain period. Because of this low underground water table and the extreme low capacity of Lopez, the city should have imposed a moratorium on all building permits for projects that will end up exacerbating the existing water problems. It is unfair to allow building projects such as the ones proposed that will negatively impact other existing homeowners who are already bearing the burden of the water shortage, and will become more stringent and restrictive with no significant rains. To add any projects that will create further shortages is unconscionable for the already difficult situation. When and if projects such as the afore mentioned are allowed to continue to be up for review, the city should be able to prove to the public that the underground water tables have returned to their normal levels, and that Lopez is once again at a high capacity. Until then, no projects should be approved that exacerbates existing negative conditions. We would appreciate the reading of this short message into the records of your hearing meeting. Sincerely, 1 Mr. & Mrs. Leroy Saruwatari 512 Launa Lane Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RECEIVED AUG 3 1 2016 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT