The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2016-09-20_08a Attachment 6East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan SCH # 2015101067 Prepared for: City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Prepared by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A Santa Barbara, California 93101 En Final vironmental Impact Report for the August 2016 ATTACHMENT 6 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2015101067 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL I MPACT REPORT FOR THE EAST CHERRY AVENUE SPECIFIC P LAN P R E P A R E D F O R : City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 P R E P A R E D B Y : Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204-A Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Contacts: Rita Bright Julia Pujo 805.962.0992 July 2016 AMEC FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. 2016. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. July. Prepared for the City of Arroyo Grande, Arroyo Grande, CA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES-1 Final EIR 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 for judgment 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 1 – 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 plan 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 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 EIR 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. • A significant 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES-3 Final EIR 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES-5 Final EIR 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impact VIS-1. Implementation of the Project would result in adverse effects to the existing scenic resources present at the site and surrounding areas. MM VIS-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact VIS-2. The proposed Project would result in a significant change in the existing visual characteristics of the site. None required Less than Significant Impact VIS-3. Construction of the Project would create short-term disruption of scenic resources for the residents and travelers along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. None required Less than Significant Impact VIS-4. The proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime light, impacting the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light. MM VIS-4a Less than Significant with Mitigation 3.2 Agricultural Resources Impact AG-1. The proposed Project would result in 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. None required Less than Significant Impact AG-2. The proposed Project would result in the conversion of agricultural land uses within the Project site, creating potentially significant impacts with respect to consistency with City Goal Ag1 and related policies in the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element, which seek protection of prime farmland. MM AG-2a Less than Significant with Mitigation 3.3 Air Quality - GHG Impact AQ-1. The proposed Project would result in potentially significant short-term construction- related air quality impacts from dust and air pollutant emissions generated by grading and construction equipment operation. MM AQ-1a MM AQ-1b MM AQ-1c MM AQ-1d Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact AQ-2. The proposed Project would result in potentially significant long-term operation-related air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile emissions. MM AQ-2a MM AQ-2b Significant and Unavoidable Impact AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions during initial construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive receptors to such emissions. MM AQ-3a MM AQ-3b Less than Significant with Mitigation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES-7 Final EIR Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact AQ-4. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to global climate change from the emissions of greenhouse gases if the Project is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. MM AQ-2b Less than Significant Impact AQ-5. The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan. MM AQ-2b MM AQ-5a Significant and Unavoidable 3.4 Biological Resources Impact BIO-1. Project construction and major alteration of the Project site would result in a loss of low-value agricultural and disturbed ruderal habitats and potential indirect impacts to the adjacent oak woodland habitat. MM BIO-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact BIO-2. Project construction and operation has the potential to create significant impacts to the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife on the Project site. MM BIO-2a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact BIO-3. The Project has the potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. None required Less than Significant 3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the proposed 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. None required Less than Significant Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the proposed Project could 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. MM HAZ-2a MM HAZ-2b MM HAZ-2c Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact HAZ-3. The proposed Project would have a 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. None required Less than Significant Impact HAZ-4. Implementation of the proposed Project could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. MM HAZ-4a MM HAZ-4b MM HAZ-4c MM HAZ-4d MM HAZ-4e Less than Significant with Mitigation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance 3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1. Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to significantly impact surface water quality from increased erosion, sedimentation and polluted runoff. MM HYD-1a MM HYD-1b MM HYD-1c MM HYD-1d Less Than Significant with Mitigation Impact HYD-2. Irrigation of the proposed cultural gardens on Subarea 3 would draw water from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, resulting in incremental impacts to groundwater resources None Required Less Than Significant Impact HYD-3. The proposed Project would alter existing onsite drainage systems, resulting in potential impacts to erosion, siltation, and flooding on and off the site. MM HYD-3a MM HYD-3b MM HYD-3c Less Than Significant with Mitigation Impact HYD-4. The proposed Project is located outside a 100-year flood hazard area and presents less than significant issues regarding onsite flood hazards. None required Less Than Significant Impact HYD-5. The proposed Project site is located at the base of an adjacent natural hillside that has the potential to result in a mudflow which would directly inundate the Project development. None required Less than Significant 3.7 Land Use and Planning Policies Impact LU-1. The proposed Project would not result in the physical divide of an established community. None required Less than Significant Impact LU-2. The proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans as none exist within the Project vicinity. None required No Impact Impact LU-3. The site design of the proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies designed to protect public views, recreational resources, and reduce the threat to new developments from fire. MM VIS-1a MM VIS-4a MM AG-1a MM HAZ-4a-e MM REC-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation 3.8 Noise Impact NOI-1. Short-term construction activities would temporarily generate adverse noise and vibration levels that would exceed thresholds established in the City’s General Plan Noise Element. MM TRANS-1a MM NOI-1a MM NOI-1b Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact NOI-2. Long-term noise impacts from 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. None required Less than Significant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES-9 Final EIR Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact NOI-3. Long-term operational noise impacts associated with the Project from the operation of stationary equipment and site maintenance activities could result in the exceedance of thresholds in the City’s General Plan Noise Element. MM NOI-3a MM NOI-3b Less than Significant with Mitigation 3.9 Recreation Impact REC-1. The proposed Project would increase the use of and need for recreational facilities, resulting in potential increase physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities. MM REC-1a Less Than Significant with Mitigation Impact REC-2. The proposed Project includes the construction of recreational facilities which may have an adverse effect on the physical environment. None required Less than Significant 3.10 Transportation and Traffic Impact TRANS-1. Project construction activities would potentially create short-term traffic impacts 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. MM TRANS-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact TRANS-2. Project generated traffic would potentially cause the LOS at the Fair Oaks 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. MM TRANS-2a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact TRANS-3. Project generated traffic would potentially cause delays at the East Grand 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. MM TRANS-3a MM TRANS-3b Significant and Unavoidable Impact TRANS-4. Project generated traffic would 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. None required Less than Significant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts (Continued) Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact TRANS-5. The proposed Project would potentially create conflicts with turning movements at driveways and intersections on the Project site. MM TRANS-5a (Recommended) Less than Significant Impact TRANS-6. The proposed Project would potentially generate and attract trips to and from U.S. Highway 101, incrementally increasing congestion of the region’s main highway. None required Less than Significant Impact TRANS-7. The proposed Project would 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. MM AQ-5a Less than Significant 3.11 Utilities and Services Impact UT-1. Implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater capacity of the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant. None required Less Than Significant Impact UT-2. The proposed Project would require the expansion of existing utility infrastructure including water, sewer, gas and electricity into the site; the construction of which would cause less than significant environmental effects. MM AQ-1a MM AQ-1b MM AQ-1c MM AQ-1d MM BIO-1a MM NOI-1a MM NOI-1b Less Than Significant with Mitigation Impact UT-3. Implementation of the Project would 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. None required Less Than Significant Impact UT-4. The proposed Project would generate additional solid waste needing disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill; however, impacts would be less than significant. None required Less Than Significant Impact UT-5. The proposed Project would increase demand for fire protection, police protection, and public school services. None required Less Than Significant EXECUTIVE SUMMARY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ES-11 Final EIR Table ES-2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Resource Proposed Project Residual Impact No Project Reduced Development Aesthetics & Visual Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Agricultural Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Air Quality & GHG Emissions Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Biological Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Hazards & Hazardous Materials Less than Significant with Mitigation Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Hydrology & Water Quality Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Land Use Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Noise Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Slightly Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Recreation Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (No Impact) Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Transportation & Traffic Significant and Unavoidable Less (Significant and Unavoidable) Less (Significant and Unavoidable) Utilities & Public Services Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Slightly Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project Objectives Met? Yes No Yes TABLE OF CONTENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan i Final EIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EAST CHERRY AVE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................... xii 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ............................................... 1-4 1.4 Scope of the EIR ...................................................................................... 1-4 1.5 Areas of Known Public Controversy ....................................................... 1-5 1.6 Organization of the EIR ........................................................................... 1-6 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Project Applicants and Representatives ................................................... 2-2 2.3 Existing Physical Setting ......................................................................... 2-2 2.3.1 Project Location ........................................................................... 2-2 2.3.2 Project Vicinity ............................................................................ 2-3 2.3.3 Project Site ................................................................................... 2-6 2.4 Existing Regulatory Setting ..................................................................... 2-7 2.4.1 City of Arroyo Grande General Plan - Land Use Element/Land Use Map ............................................................... 2-7 2.4.2 City of Arroyo Grande General Plan - Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element ....................................... 2-8 2.4.3 City of Arroyo Municipal Code ................................................... 2-9 2.5 Project Objectives .................................................................................. 2-10 2.6 Project Overview ................................................................................... 2-10 2.6.1 Required Approvals ................................................................... 2-11 2.6.2 Specific Plan Development Standards ....................................... 2-12 2.6.3 Land Use Plan ............................................................................ 2-12 2.6.3.1 Subarea 1: Traffic Way Mixed-Use ............................ 2-14 2.6.3.2 Subarea 2: Proposed Village Residential .................... 2-17 2.6.3.3 Subarea 3: Proposed Village Mixed-Use .................... 2-19 2.6.3.4 Proposed Park ............................................................. 2-21 2.6.4 Project Design ............................................................................ 2-22 2.6.4.1 Landscape Design ....................................................... 2-23 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE ii East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 2.6.4.2 Energy Conservation and Site and Building Design ......................................................................... 2-24 2.6.4.3 Signage and Lighting .................................................. 2-25 2.6.5 Circulation and Parking ............................................................. 2-25 2.6.5.1 Proposed Vehicular Circulation .................................. 2-25 2.6.5.2 Parking ........................................................................ 2-30 2.6.6 Stormwater Drainage System .................................................... 2-30 2.6.7 Utilities and Services ................................................................. 2-32 2.6.7.1 Water ........................................................................... 2-33 2.6.7.2 Sanitary Sewer ............................................................ 2-33 2.6.7.3 Dry Utilities ................................................................ 2-33 2.6.8 Offsite Agricultural Protection Measures .................................. 2-34 2.7 Project Construction............................................................................... 2-34 2.7.1 Phasing ....................................................................................... 2-34 2.7.2 Construction Activities .............................................................. 2-34 2.7.2.1 Site Preparation and Grading ...................................... 2-35 2.7.2.2 Onsite Infrastructure Improvements ........................... 2-36 2.7.2.3 Offsite Infrastructure Improvements .......................... 2-36 2.7.3 Traffic Control Plan ................................................................... 2-37 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................... 3.0-1 3.0.1 Impact Classification ................................................................ 3.0-1 3.0.2 Mitigation Measures ................................................................ .3.0-2 3.0.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis .................................................... .3.0-2 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources .......................................................... 3.1-1 3.1.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.1-1 3.1.1.1 Regional Visual Character ......................................... 3.1-1 3.1.1.2 Visual Character of the Project Site and Surroundings .............................................................. 3.1-2 3.1.1.3 Vistas and Scenic Highways ...................................... 3.1-4 3.1.1.4 Light and Glare, and Nighttime Lighting .................. 3.1-5 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.1-5 3.1.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.1-5 3.1.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.1-5 3.1.2.3 Local .......................................................................... 3.1-6 3.1.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................ 3.1-8 3.1.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ........................................ 3.1-8 3.1.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .............................. 3.1-8 3.1.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.1-18 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.1-26 3.2 Agricultural Resources .......................................................................... 3.2-1 3.2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.2-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan iii Final EIR 3.2.1.1 Regional Context ....................................................... 3.2-1 3.2.1.2 Local Context ............................................................. 3.2-2 3.2.1.3 Project Site ................................................................. 3.2-2 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.2-6 3.2.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.2-6 3.2.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.2-6 3.2.2.3 Local .......................................................................... 3.2-8 3.2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.2-12 3.2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.2-12 3.2.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.2-13 3.2.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.2-14 3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.2-19 3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................... 3.3-1 3.3.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.3-1 3.3.1.1 Regional Climate and Meteorology ........................... 3.3-1 3.3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change ........ 3.3-2 3.3.1.3 Regional Air Quality .................................................. 3.3-3 3.3.1.4 Regional Emissions.................................................... 3.3-3 3.3.1.5 Emissions in the Vicinity of the Project Site ............. 3.3-5 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.3-6 3.3.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.3-6 3.3.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.3-7 3.3.2.3 Local ........................................................................ 3.3-12 3.3.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.3-13 3.3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.3-13 3.3.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.3-17 3.3.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.3-17 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.3-36 3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 3.4-1 3.4.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.4-1 3.4.1.1 Biological Communities ............................................ 3.4-2 3.4.1.2 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States ...... 3.4-4 3.4.1.3 Special Status Species ................................................ 3.4-5 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.4-9 3.4.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.4-9 3.4.2.2 State ......................................................................... 3.4-10 3.4.2.3 Local ........................................................................ 3.4-11 3.4.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.4-13 3.4.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.4-13 3.4.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.4-13 3.4.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.4-14 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.4-19 3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................ 3.5-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE iv East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.5.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.5-2 3.5.1.1 Potential for Hazardous Materials within the Project Vicinity .......................................................... 3.5-2 3.5.1.2 Risk of Wildfire within the Project Vicinity .............. 3.5-4 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.5-5 3.5.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.5-5 3.5.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.5-8 3.5.2.3 Local ........................................................................ 3.5-10 3.5.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.5-10 3.5.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.5-10 3.5.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.5-11 3.5.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.5-12 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.5-20 3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 3.6-1 3.6.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.6-1 3.6.1.1 Regional Setting ......................................................... 3.6-1 3.6.1.2 Project Site Setting .................................................... 3.6-4 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.6-5 3.6.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.6-5 3.6.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.6-6 3.6.2.3 Local .......................................................................... 3.6-8 3.6.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.6-11 3.6.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.6-11 3.6.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.6-12 3.6.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.6-12 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.6-21 3.7 Land Use ............................................................................................... 3.7-1 3.7.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.7-1 3.7.1.1 Project Vicinity .......................................................... 3.7-1 3.7.1.2 Project Site ................................................................. 3.7-1 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.7-2 3.7.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.7-2 3.7.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.7-2 3.7.2.3 Local .......................................................................... 3.7-2 3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................ 3.7-3 3.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ........................................ 3.7-3 3.7.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .............................. 3.7-4 3.7.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................. 3.7-4 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.7-8 3.8 Noise ..................................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.8.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.8-1 3.8.1.1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise.... 3.8-1 3.8.1.2 Existing Noise Environment ...................................... 3.8-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan v Final EIR 3.8.1.3 Sensitive Receptors .................................................... 3.8-5 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.8-6 3.8.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.8-6 3.8.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.8-7 3.8.2.3 Local .......................................................................... 3.8-7 3.8.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.8-11 3.8.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.8-11 3.8.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.8-12 3.8.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.8-13 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.8-22 3.9 Recreation ............................................................................................. 3.9-1 3.9.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.9-1 3.9.1.1 Recreational Resources .............................................. 3.9-1 3.9.1.2 Project Site ................................................................. 3.9-1 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.9-3 3.9.2.1 Federal ....................................................................... 3.9-3 3.9.2.2 State ........................................................................... 3.9-3 3.9.2.3 Local .......................................................................... 3.9-3 3.9.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................ 3.9-4 3.9.3.1 Thresholds of Significance ........................................ 3.9-4 3.9.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .............................. 3.9-4 3.9.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................. 3.9-4 3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.9-8 3.10 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................. 3.10-1 3.10.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.10-1 3.10.1.1 Area Roadway Network........................................... 3.10-1 3.10.1.2 Traffic Operations at Intersections .......................... 3.10-4 3.10.1.3 Alternative Transportation ....................................... 3.10-6 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting ................................................................ 3.10-10 3.10.2.1 Federal ................................................................... 3.10-10 3.10.2.2 State ....................................................................... 3.10-10 3.10.2.3 Local ...................................................................... 3.10-11 3.10.3 Environmental Impact Analysis ............................................ 3.10-12 3.10.3.1 Thresholds of Significance .................................... 3.10-12 3.10.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .......................... 3.10-13 3.10.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................. 3.10-17 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. 3.10-30 3.11 Utilities and Public Services ............................................................... 3.11-1 3.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.11-1 3.11.1.1 Public Services ......................................................... 3.11-1 3.11.1.2 Utility Services ........................................................ 3.11-3 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting .................................................................. 3.11-6 3.11.2.1 Federal ..................................................................... 3.11-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE vi East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.11.2.2 State ......................................................................... 3.11-6 3.11.2.3 Local ........................................................................ 3.11-8 3.11.3 Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.11-9 3.11.3.1 Thresholds for Determining Significance ................ 3.11-9 3.11.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology .......................... 3.11-10 3.11.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................. 3.11-10 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. 3.11-18 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 4-1 4.1 Irreversible Environmental Impacts ......................................................... 4-1 4.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................ 4-2 4.2.1 Employment Generation .............................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Population and Housing Generation ............................................ 4-2 4.2.3 Tourist Accommodation Generation ............................................ 4-3 4.2.4 Extension of Infrastructure .......................................................... 4-3 4.3 Effects Found Not To Be Significant....................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 4-4 4.3.2 Geological Resources ................................................................... 4-5 4.3.3 Mineral Resources ....................................................................... 4-5 4.3.4 Population and Housing ............................................................... 4-5 4.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects ..................................... 4-6 5.0 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Project Objectives .................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Summary of Potentially Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts ......... 5-2 5.3.1 Long-Term Impacts ..................................................................... 5-2 5.3.1.1 Air Quality Emissions ................................................... 5-2 5.3.1.2 Transportation and Traffic ............................................ 5-2 5.4 Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................... 5-3 5.4.1 Alternatives Considered but Discarded ....................................... 5-3 5.4.1.1 Other Comparable Sites Alternative ............................. 5-3 5.4.1.2 Circulation Planning Alternative .................................. 5-4 5.4.1.3 Agricultural Preserve Alternative ................................. 5-4 5.4.1.4 Additional Park and Recreational Facilities ................. 5-5 5.4.2 Alternatives Considered for Analysis .......................................... 5-5 5.4.2.1 No Project Alternative .................................................. 5-5 5.4.2.2 Reduced Development Alternative ............................... 5-6 5.5 Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................... 5-9 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 7-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan vii Final EIR 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 8-1 8.2 Format of the Response to Comments ..................................................... 8-1 8.3 Index of Comments Received .................................................................. 8-2 8.4 Response to Comments ............................................................................ 8-3 8.4.1 Organizations ............................................................................... 8-4 8.4.2 Individuals.................................................................................... 8-6 8.4.3 Applicant .................................................................................... 8-27 8.4.4 Oral Testimonies ........................................................................ 8-34 8.4.5 Public Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period ........................................................................ 8-43 TABLE OF CONTENTS viii East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR LIST OF APPENDICES A Initial Study B NOP and Public Response C Draft East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan D LESA Model Worksheets & Summary Tables E Air Quality Technical Data (including CalEEMod) F Biological Resources Assessment G Cultural Resources Survey of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan H Geology and Soils Reports I Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Reports J Preliminary Hydrology Reports K Transportation Impact Analysis Report L Numerical Slope Stability Evaluation M East Cherry Avenue Design Guidelines N Water Usage Calculations TABLE OF CONTENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan ix Final EIR LIST OF FIGURES NUMBER TITLE PAGE Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2. Project Site ............................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2-3. Proposed Project Site Land Use ........................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-4. Subarea 1 Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................ 2-16 Figure 2-5. Circulation Plan .................................................................................... 2-26 Figure 2-6. Collector Road Sections ....................................................................... 2-27 Figure 2-7. Residential Interior Road Sections ....................................................... 2-28 Figure 2-8. Proposed Stormwater Drainage Improvements .................................... 2-31 Figure 3.1-1. KVA Location Map ........................................................................... 3.1-11 Figure 3.1-2. KVA 1 - Looking East from the Intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue ........................................................................... 3.1-12 Figure 3.1-3. KVA 2 - Looking East Along East Cherry Avenue .......................... 3.1-13 Figure 3.1-4. KVA 3 - Looking West Along East Cherry Avenue ......................... 3.1-15 Figure 3.2-1. Agricultural Resources within the Project Site ................................... 3.2-3 Figure 3.2-2. Agricultural Soils within the Project Site ............................................ 3.2-4 Figure 3.4-1 Biological Resources with the Project Vicinity .................................. 3.4-3 Figure 3.5-1. Fire Threat in the Project Vicinity ....................................................... 3.5-5 Figure 3.6-1. 100-Year Floodplain in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project ............. 3.6-3 Figure 3.8-1. Noise Sensitive Receptors ................................................................... 3.8-6 Figure 3.10-1. Existing Transportation Conditions ................................................... 3.10-2 Figure 3.10-2. Existing + Approved/Pending Projects + Project Transportation Conditions ....................................................................................... 3.10-16 Figure 3.10-3. Roundabout Alternative .................................................................. 3.10-25 TABLE OF CONTENTS x East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR LIST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ..............ES-6 Table ES-2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............ES-11 Table 2-1. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Properties ........................................ 2-3 Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses ........................................................ 2-12 Table 2-3. Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) District Development Standards ...... 2-15 Table 2-4. Specific Plan Village Residential (VR) District Development Standards .............................................................................................. 2-18 Table 2-5. Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District Development Standards .............. 2-20 Table 2-6. List of Construction Equipment ........................................................... 2-35 Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List ............................................................................3 Table 3.1 1. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.1-18 Table 3.2-1. Project Site Soil Capabilities ............................................................... 3.2-5 Table 3.2-2. LESA Analysis Summary for the Project Site .................................. 3.2-14 Table 3.2-3. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.2-15 Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ...................... 3.3-4 Table 3.3-2. Ambient Air Quality Data at Nipomo Air Monitoring Stations .......... 3.3-5 Table 3.3-3. Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations .................. 3.3-15 Table 3.3-4. Thresholds of Significance for Operational Operations .................... 3.3-16 Table 3.3-5. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.3-18 Table 3.3-6. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) ......... 3.3-19 Table 3.3-7. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Mitigated) .............. 3.3-23 Table 3.3-8. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) ........... 3.3-24 Table 3.3-9. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Mitigated) ................ 3.3-29 Table 3.3-10. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Mitigated) ....................... 3.3-32 Table 3.3-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Mitigated) ......................... 3.3-32 Table 3.4-1. Special Status Plants that are known to or Have the Potential to Occur in the Project Site ...................................................................... 3.4-6 Table 3.4-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site ....................................................................................................... 3.4-7 Table 3.4-3. Summary of Project Impacts for all Subareas ................................... 3.4-14 Table 3.5-1. Summary of Hazardous Materials Database Searches ........................ 3.5-3 Table 3.5-2. Summary of Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites and USTs within the Project Vicinity .................................................................. 3.5-3 Table 3.5-3. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.5-12 Table 3.6-1. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.6-13 Table 3.6-2. Historic and Predicted Groundwater Pumping (AFY) ...................... 3.6-16 Table 3.7-1. Project Site Land Use Designations and Zoning ................................. 3.7-1 Table 3.7-2. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................... 3.7-4 Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies .............................................. 3.7-9 Table 3.8-1. Representative Noise Levels ............................................................... 3.8-2 Table 3.8-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ...... 3.8-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE TITLE PAGE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan xi Final EIR Table 3.8-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Transportation Noise Sources ................................................................................................ 3.8-8 Table 3.8-4. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Stationary Noise Sources ......................................................... 3.8-9 Table 3.8-5. Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment ............................. 3.8-9 Table 3.8-6. Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .............................. 3.8-13 Table 3.8-7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...................... 3.8-13 Table 3.8-8. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.8-14 Table 3.8-9. Estimated Outdoor Construction Peak Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Unmitigated) ................................................................... 3.8-16 Table 3.8-10. Estimated Noise Increases Attributed to Project Traffic ................... 3.8-19 Table 3.8-11. Existing Noise, Estimated Noise, and Noise Increase Attributed to Project Traffic ............................................................................... 3.8-20 Table 3.8-12. Existing Noise, Estimated Cumulative Noise, and Noise Increase Attributed to Project Traffic .............................................................. 3.8-23 Table 3.9-1. Public Open Spaces and Recreational Resources ................................ 3.9-2 Table 3.9-2. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................... 3.9-5 Table 3.10-1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ............ 3.10-5 Table 3.10-2. Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS ............................................... 3.10-6 Table 3.10-3. Existing Transit Services ................................................................... 3.10-8 Table 3.10-4. AM Peak Hour + Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary .... 3.10-16 Table 3.10-5. PM Peak Hour Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary ........ 3.10-17 Table 3.10 6. Summary of Project Impacts ........................................................... 3.10-18 Table 3.10-7. Cumulative + Project (Mitigated) Conditions: Intersection LOS ... 3.10-31 Table 3.11 1. Public Schools within the Project Vicinity ........................................ 3.11-1 Table 3.11-2. Arroyo Grande Water Supply ............................................................ 3.11-3 Table 3.11-3. Summary of Project Impacts ........................................................... 3.11-12 Table 3.11-4. Projected Wastewater Production ................................................... 3.11-13 Table 3.11-5. Projected Water Demands ............................................................... 3.11-15 Table 3.11-6. Estimated Solid Waste Production .................................................. 3.11-17 Table 8-1. Index of Comments Received on the Draft EIR ..................................... 8-2 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xii East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADT average daily trips af acre-feet afy acre-feet per year AGCFCP Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Project AGPD Arroyo Grande Police Department AHERA Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act Amec Foster Wheeler Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. APCD Air Pollution Control District ARC Architectural Review Committee AWSC all-way stop-control BMP best management practice C/OS Conservation/Open Space Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Clean Air Plan CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act cf cubic feet CF Community Facilities CFR Code of Federal Regulations City City of Arroyo Grande CMP congestion management program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CUP conditional use permit CWA Clean Water Act cy cubic yard D-2.11 Design Overlay District dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EC Education Code LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan xiii Final EIR EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESA Environmental Site Assessment FAR Floor Area Ratio FCFA Five Cities Fire Authority FCWCD Five Cities Water Control District FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Fire District Five Cities Fire Authority FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG greenhouse gases gpd gallons per day HCM Highway Capacity Manual HOA Home Owners Association HSC Health and Safety Code HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning in/sec inches per second IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management Plan IS Initial Study ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers JWA Japanese Welfare Association KVA Key Viewing Area kWh kilowatt-hours lbs pounds Ldn day-night average noise level LE Land Evaluation LED light-emitting diode Leq equivalent energy noise level LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment LID Low Impact Development LIM Land Inventory and Monitoring Lmin minimum instantaneous noise level Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level LOS Level of Service LRA Local Responsibility Area LUST leaking underground storage tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MND mitigated negative declaration mph miles per hour msl mean sea-level LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xiv East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR MS4s municipal separate storm sewer systems MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices NAHC Native American Heritage Commission National Contingency Plan National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NCES National Center for Educational Statistics NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants NKT NKT Development, LLC NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service OPR Office of Planning Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEA Preliminary Endangerment Assessment PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric PM particulate matter Project East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan RCP reinforced concrete pipe RNDBT roundabout RTP Regional Transportation Plan RV recreational vehicle RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SA Site Assessment SB Senate Bill SCG Southern California Gas Company SCT South County Transit School District Lucia Mar Unified School District sf square foot SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SII Sage Institute, Inc. SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments SLOCTM San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model SLOFCWCD San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District SLORTA San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority SoCal Gas Southern California Gas Company SSLOCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District SWMP Storm Water Management Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC toxic air contaminant TCE trichloroethylene LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan xv Final EIR thm therms TIA Transportation Impact Analysis TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TMU Traffic Way Mixed-Use tpd tons per day TRB Transportation Research Board TRI Toxic Release Inventory TWSC two-way stop-control U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank VdB vibration decibels VMT vehicle miles traveled VMU Village Mixed-Use VR Village Residential WWTP wastewater treatment plant 1.0 INTRODUCTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 1-1 Final EIR 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) in the City of Arroyo Grande (City), California. The EIR was prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler, Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) in cooperation with City of Arroyo Grande staff. This EIR discloses the findings of the City regarding potential impacts of adoption and implementation of the proposed Project. The Project site consists of three adjacent parcels under separate ownerships referred to as Subarea 1 – 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 plan 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 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 The 15.29-acre Project site, currently undeveloped and mostly used for agriculture, is proposed for hotel and restaurant uses along Traffic Way, 58 housing units, and a 1.51-acre area proposed for Japanese cultural garden, historic orchard, commercial uses, and senior housing. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR visitor serving uses that expresses the ideologies of the JWA and is both compatible with and supports the local community. 1.2 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY This EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (Title 14, California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the City’s procedures for implementing CEQA. It is intended to provide information to public agencies, decision- makers, and the general public regarding the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Project. Under the provisions of CEQA, “the purpose of the environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided” (Public Resources Code 21002.1[a]). In a practical sense, this EIR functions as a tool for fact-finding, allowing the public and the City an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline existing conditions and the Project’s potential to result in environmental impacts through a full disclosure process. Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the City to consider when exercising any permitting or approval authority directly related to the Project. The CEQA process was established to enable public agencies to evaluate a project in terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts, and to consider alternatives to the project. While CEQA Section 15021(a) requires that major consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, taking into account economic, legal, social, and technological factors. Although the Project takes the form of a specific plan, this EIR contains a Project-level environmental review that fulfills the requirement of a Project-level EIR. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a Project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project and focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the Project. The EIR examines all phases of the Project including planning, construction, and operation. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, where a public agency prepares an EIR on a specific plan, future residential projects that conform to the specific plan would not require 1.0 INTRODUCTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 1-3 Final EIR further environmental review, as long as the residential development is within the scope of the EIR, no new environmental effects are anticipated to occur, and no new mitigation measures are required for the residential development. The City prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the Project in August 2015, made publicly available through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) distribution process in October 2015, which found that the Project may have potentially significant impacts to the following resources: aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities (see Appendix A). Pursuant to Section 21080(d) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15064(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, if there is a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR, even when other substantial evidence has been presented that a project will not have a significant effect. Consequently, the City has determined that the preparation of an EIR would be required to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Project. In compliance with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City performed a public scoping process consistent with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines. The public was provided an opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIR through a NOP released on August 14, 2015, which was distributed to federal, state, regional, and City agencies, neighborhood groups. The NOP comment period ran from August 14, 2015 through September 14, 2015, and a public hearing was held on August 26, 2015. During the NOP comment period, City received 30 written comment letters. Comments received during the NOP comment period were considered during EIR preparation and are included in Appendix B. The Draft EIR has been distributed to federal, state, regional, and City agencies, neighborhood groups, and NOP commenters. The Final EIR is available for review online at the City’s Community Development Department website at: http://www.arroyogrande.org. Comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period that ran from April 11, 2016 to May 26, 2016 are addressed in the Final EIR within Section 8.0, Response to Comments. Changes to the Final EIR are made in strikethrough and underline format. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 1.3 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Per Section 21067 of CEQA and Sections 15367 and 15050 through 15053 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arroyo Grande is the Lead Agency under whose authority this document has been prepared. The City has primary discretionary authority to determine whether to approve the Project. Responsible and other agencies are public agencies responsible for certain discretionary Project approvals or implementing specific components of the Project. These include: • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) • San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) In addition, trustee agencies have jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California but do not have legal authority for approval of the Project. The CDFW is considered the only trustee agency for this Project, pursuant to CEQA Section 15386, with regard to fish and wildlife, and native plants designated rare and endangered. 1.4 SCOPE OF THE EIR This EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts that could occur with implementation of the Project. The scope of the EIR includes evaluation of potentially significant environmental issues identified in the IS and raised in response to the NOP and during scoping discussions. The IS and NOP scoping process determined that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the following issue areas, which are addressed in detail in this EIR: • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Biological Resources • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use • Noise • Recreational Resources • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Public Service • Other Required CEQA Disclosures 1.0 INTRODUCTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 1-5 Final EIR This EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies potential environmental impacts, including Project-specific and cumulative effects of the Project, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures, where necessary, that would reduce or eliminate adverse environmental effects. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 (Effects Not Found to Be Significant), environmental impacts related to Geology and Soils, and Mineral Resources were not considered significant, and are discussed in Section 4.0, Other CEQA Considerations. A summary of cumulative impacts, which gives consideration to other projects in the vicinity, are described in each resource section within Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. Cumulative project analyses represent a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts on City resources using a list of past, present, and probable future projects capable of producing related or cumulative impacts. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[d]), this EIR includes the assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that could feasibly attain the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of the Project. Please refer to Section 5.0, Alternatives. 1.5 AREAS OF KNOWN PUBLIC CONTROVERSY Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR shall identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by the agency and the public. Based on comments received from the public hearing and responses received during the NOP comment period, the following issues are known to be of concern and may be controversial. Each issue is further evaluated in the EIR: • Permanent loss of prime agricultural land; • Adequacy of utility infrastructure and dependent resources, including the existing water system and available water supply; • Construction-related impacts such as interference with pedestrian and vehicle traffic circulation, dust, and other emissions; • Potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff into the drainage channel along the southern Project site boundary; • Potential impacts to sensitive biological resources within, and adjacent to the south of the Project site; and, • Potential to obstruct views of the Santa Lucia Range and adjacent natural hillsides, as well as disrupt the visual character of the area. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR This EIR is organized into the following sections: • Section 1.0, Introduction, summarizes the background of the Project and explains the environmental review process. • Section 2.0, Project Description, provides a detailed description of Project specifications, Project and area settings, applicable federal, state, and local regulations. • Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, provides analysis of existing environmental conditions, specific project impacts, mitigation measures, residual impacts, and cumulative impacts. • Section 4.0, Other CEQA Considerations, identifies significant and irreversible, growth-inducing, and unavoidable effects, as well as resources areas that would not be significantly affected by the Project. • Section 5.0, Alternatives, describes alternatives to the Project, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. • Section 6.0, List of Preparers, identifies the EIR Project team. • Section 7.0, References, provides information about resources used in the preparation of the EIR. • Section 8.0, Response to Comments, includes responses to all written and oral comments received from the public, organizations, and agencies on the Draft EIR. • Appendices to the EIR include the IS, NOP and NOP comment letters, and supporting technical studies used as a basis of information and analyses in preparation of the EIR. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-1 Final EIR 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION SRK Hotels, Mangano Homes, Inc., and Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) (Applicants) propose a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and related Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) to permit integration and development of three subareas encompassing 15.29 acres, which collectively comprise the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). The Project is intended to serve as the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City) long-range plan for the development and ongoing use of the various properties within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area (Project site). The Project site is divided into three subareas. The City’s Land Use Map specifically identifies a 2.16- acre portion of the Project site (referred to as Subarea 1) as a mixed-use development area generally limited to the use of automobile sales and services, while the remainder of the Project site (Subareas 2 and 3) are currently designated for agricultural land uses. However, the entire Project site is contained within a Specific Plan Overlay District, requiring preparation of a specific plan to address key planning and environmental issues, such as housing, economic development, availability of water resources, open space and agricultural land preservation, traffic and circulation, and neighborhood compatibility and character (City of Arroyo Grande 2009). The Applicants propose the adoption and implementation of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, General Plan and Land Use Map amendment, Development Code and Zoning Map amendment, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element’s Creek Locations Map amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (for Subarea 2) and Conditional Use Permit (for proposed uses within Subareas 1 and 3, at this time), which provide a detailed set of standards and requirements to guide development of the property. The Specific Plan details the designation of land uses, designation of required access and View north east of the 15.29-acre Project site proposed for hotel and restaurant uses along Traffic Way, 58 single-family housing units, and a 1.51-acre area proposed for a Japanese cultural garden, historic orchard, commercial uses, and senior housing. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR circulation elements, location and sizing of infrastructure, phasing of development, financing methods for public improvements, and the establishment of standards of development. Beneficial features called for in Specific Plan developments include residential clustering, maintaining open spaces, mixed uses, and designs that are sensitive to the site as a whole and its setting. The proposed Project would coordinate the three subareas and provide for a range of uses including both commercial and residential. The Project includes an approximate 90- to 100-room hotel and standalone restaurant (Subarea 1 – 2.16 acres); single-family residences (Subarea 2 – 11.62 acres); and an area of assembly, limited commercial uses, attached residential housing, and gardens and orchards (Subarea 3 – 1.51 acres). 2.2 PROJECT APPLICANTS AND REPRESENTATIVES Subarea Applicant Representative Architect 1 SRK Hotels 611 El Camino Real, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 C.M. Florence, AICP Oasis Associates, Inc. 3427 San Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM Design Group Randy Russon 3765 South Higuera St, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 2 Mangano Homes, Inc. 735 Tank Farm Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 C.M. Florence, AICP Oasis Associates, Inc. 3427 San Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM Design Group Randy Russon 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3 Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) 715 Grand Avenue, Suite A Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Margaret Ikeal Ikeda 1701 MLK, Jr. Way Berkeley, CA 94709 Assembly Design Even Jones 1701 MLK, Jr. Way Berkeley, CA 94709 2.3 EXISTING PHYSICAL SETTING 2.3.1 Project Location The Project site encompasses 15.29 acres of mostly undeveloped and agricultural land at the southern commercial gateway of the City of Arroyo Grande (Figure 2-1). The Project site consists of five parcels with street addresses of 490 and 112 East Cherry Avenue, and 501 Traffic Way, all properties owned under three separate entities, and related subareas, as shown in Table 2-1. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-3 Final EIR Table 2-1. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Properties Subarea Current Ownership APN Land Use/ Existing Zoning Existing Acreages 1 SRK Hotels 076-621-076, -077, -078 Mixed-Use/ Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU D-2.11) 2.16 2 Mangano Homes, Inc. 076-621-079 Agriculture/ Agriculture 11.62 3 Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) 076-210-001 Agriculture/ Agriculture 1.51 Total Acres 15.29 Notes: TMU D-2.11 - Traffic Way Mixed-Use with D-2.11 Design Overlay. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a. The site is situated north of the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, single-family residences, and the Saint Barnabas’ Episcopal Church; east of Traffic Way and its interchange with U.S. Highway 101; south of East Cherry Avenue; and west of Launa Lane and Los Olivos Lane (Figure 2-2). 2.3.2 Project Vicinity The Project site is located in the City of Arroyo Grande, which is within San Luis Obispo County. Topography in the Project vicinity is relatively level on the Project site and to the north and west; however, the southern boundary of the site forms the base of steeper oak woodland hillsides that slope up towards the southeast. Vegetation in the Project vicinity consists primarily of grasslands, low lying drainages, and agricultural fields. Mature trees within the region are generally located within established windrows, along riparian corridors of three tributaries to Arroyo Grande Creek (Tally Ho, Tar Springs, and Los Berros Creeks) that flow through the watershed, or as landscaping in developed areas. The Project site is located at the southern commercial gateway to Arroyo Grande. Land use is characterized by a mix of undeveloped open areas and urban development. Existing nearby development consists primarily of single-family residential neighborhoods beyond to the north, single-family residential neighborhoods and agricultural fields beyond to the east, commercial establishments located along the Traffic Way corridor and U.S. Highway 101 beyond to the west, and a mix of residential, commercial, religious, and undeveloped open areas to the south, including Mobil Gas Station, Vagabond Mobile Home Park, and St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church bordering the southern boundary of the Project site. Arroyo Grande CreekTarSpring CreekM ea d o w C r e e k ARROYO GRANDEARROYO GRANDEVILLAGEVILLAGEARROYOARROYOGRANDEGRANDE101101101227227111PACIFICOCEANProjectSiteEast Cherry AvenueEast Cherry AvenueEast Grand AvenueEast Grand AvenueTraffic W ayWest Grand AvenueWest Grand AvenueEast Cherry AvenueFair Oaks AvenueEast Grand AvenueWest Grand AvenueTraffic W ayGROVER BEACHGROVER BEACHOCEANOOCEANOPISMO BEACHPISMO BEACHGROVER BEACHOCEANOPISMO BEACHARROYOGRANDEARROYO GRANDEVILLAGEArroyo GrandeCreekTarSpring CreekLos Berros C reekPismo Creek M ea d o w C r e e kAvila BeachAvila BeachSAN LUIS OBISPOCOUNTYMONTEREY COUNTYKINGS COUNTYKERNCOUNTYSANTA BARBARACOUNTYSANTAMARIATempletonPaso RoblesMorro BayArroyo GrandeSAN LUISOBISPOCambriaSan MiguelNipomoPismo BeachGrover BeachAvilaBeach★★PROJECTLOCATION1011014658581146414611663333415NacimientoReservoirSanta MargaritaLakePACIFICOCEANLopez LakeTwitchellReservoirSodaLakeS alinas River Santa Maria River018MILESN0300MILESNProjectProjectSiteSiteProjectSite★★CALIFORNIASan LuisObispoCountyLEGENDProject LocationCity of Arroyo GrandeCity HallOther City/CommunitySan Luis Obispo County2-1FIGURE04,000SCALE IN FEETNProject Vicinity2-4 2-5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 200 feet southwest of Project site and provides regional access to the Project vicinity via the Traffic Way interchange approximately 400 feet to the south. Traffic Way is an arterial street that links the Project site with the central portions of the City to the northwest via connections to Fair Oaks Avenue and East Grand Avenue, which allows access west across U.S. Highway 101. East Cherry Avenue, a two- lane collector roadway, serves as the northern boundary of the Project site and traverses the southeastern portion of the City, connecting to Branch Mill Road, Lopez Drive, and Lopez Lake. 2.3.3 Project Site The Project site consists of mostly undeveloped and agricultural land and is generally level at an elevation of approximately 88 feet (NKT Development 2015). Existing features include agricultural fields, row crops, ruderal (weedy) vegetation in disturbed areas along the edges of agricultural fields, oaks and non-native trees in the eastern portion of the site (Subarea 3), and a drainage feature with associated riparian habitat located at the toe of the slope approximately 20 feet from the southern border of the Project site. This drainage feature, created in this location due to the historical agricultural activities, conveys sheet flows from the hillside from the adjacent St. Barnabas’ Church property. View north across East Cherry Avenue; the site is bordered by residential development and the Five Cities Swim School. The Project site is bordered to the southeast by a Mobil Gas Station and the Vagabond Mobile Home Park located on Traffic Way. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-7 Final EIR Subareas 1 and 2 are currently undeveloped and have historically been under agricultural production. Subarea 3 was originally purchased in the 1920s by the Arroyo Grande Valley JWA, and included two houses, two garages, and accessory buildings. In the 1930s, a community hall and kitchen structure were constructed which served as a meeting place for Japanese-American cultural activities in Arroyo Grande through the 1960s. Following, the structure was used as a Boy Scout Hall and Judo Club. In 2011, the last remaining structure – the community hall – was burned down by arson (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). Local road access to the Project site is via East Cherry Avenue, a two-lane collector roadway with an unpaved shoulder fronting the site on the north. The Project site is adjacent to the City’s southern commercial gateway, with visibility from both public viewsheds and private residences. The Project site provides transitional views with a more urban setting in the close range transitioning to hillsides and mountain views in the more distant range. 2.4 EXISTING REGULATORY SETTING Land use and development potential within the Project site and vicinity are governed by the City’s General Plan and development code, as discussed below and within the Regulatory Setting of each resource area analyzed within this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 2.4.1 City of Arroyo Grande General Plan – Land Use Element/Land Use Map The General Plan/Land Use Map identify the community’s land use, circulation, environmental, economic, and social goals and policies as they relate to land use and Subareas 1 and 2 are generally level and under agricultural production (e.g., broccoli, lettuce, cabbage and celery). Subarea 3, owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley JWA, currently contains a small storage structure, a mobile home, and storage for a few boats. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR development. The General Plan/Land Use Map is the primary plan that guides potential development of the Project site. The City’s General Plan/Land Use Map specifically identifies the Project site land use as Mixed-Use (Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2 and 3) and defines residential densities, subdivision designs, envisioned mixed uses, and design standards to address land use compatibility between varied uses onsite and with the surrounding neighborhood (City of Arroyo Grande 2003). 2.4.2 City of Arroyo Grande General Plan – Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element The City’s Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element identifies the importance of agricultural lands and protection of resources in the City of Arroyo Grande. Policy Ag1- 4.2 requires mitigation for loss of prime farmland soils and states: Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 and up to 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may involve, but is not limited to, dedication of a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement or other effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of location shall be determined by the City Council. The aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and contiguous to City boundaries, secondly within the Urban Land Use Element area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley within the Area of Environmental Concern. Other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council. In order to address this policy, this Project proposes offsite agricultural mitigation with conservation of agricultural land located at 1189 Flora Road in combination with the stated water rights and access considerations protection measures. On July 28, 2015 the City Council considered that the offer to conserve offsite agricultural land constitutes appropriate mitigation for the conversion of 9.79 acres of prime agricultural land within Subarea 2. This dedication did not consider potential impacts in either Subarea 1 or 3. This EIR evaluates potential agricultural impacts for all three subareas. See Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, for a detailed analysis. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-9 Final EIR 2.4.3 City of Arroyo Municipal Code The intent of the zoning districts, as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 16, Development Code) and applicable to the Project site, are described below. •Traffic Way Mixed-Use - Design Overlay District (TMU D-2.11) – The primary purpose of the TMU district is to provide for vehicle sales and services, related retail and office uses, and visitor serving facilities convenient to both freeway traffic and vehicles or pedestrians from the nearby village area. Development standards and design guidelines are intended to enhance this specialized mix of uses at the southern gateway to Arroyo Grande, which include automobile and small truck sales and service, equipment rental, repair and related services, offices, wholesale and retail sales including outdoor display, motels, restaurants, and limited residential uses functioning as live-work units. The TMU district implements and is consistent with the Mixed-Use land use category of the General Plan. •Village Residential (VR) – The primary purpose of the VR district is to provide for residential uses while preserving the character of those areas which are historic or close to historic structures. More particularly, the village residential district is intended to protect historical resources that add interest, identity, and variety to older neighborhoods, contributing to the area's quality of life by providing a visual focus on the city's rural heritage. The district is intended as an area for the preservation and development of single-family detached homes at a maximum allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Per General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU2-4.2, the Development Code may provide for alternative development standards and increased density (maximum of 10 percent) in all single-family residential districts where superior neo-traditional subdivision design is proposed. •Village Mixed-Use (VMU) D-2.11 HCO D-2.4 – The primary purpose of the VMU district is to provide for a mixture of commercial, office, and residential uses compatible with surrounding residential districts, in small-scale pedestrian-oriented developments. Regulations for the VMU district combined with the historic character overlay district promote and preserve older architectural styles, and encourage a harmonious intermingling of other structures. This district encourages use of existing residential buildings for non-residential uses. Typical uses may include single- and multiple-family residential, specialty retail sales, professional offices, personal services and neighborhood markets. The VMU district implements and is consistent with the village core land use designation of the General Plan. The City’s Municipal Code includes two tree ordinances that are applicable to the Project site, and are described below. •Municipal Code Section 10.12 – Obstruction of Visibility of Driveways or Intersections – The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 10.12 is specifically designed to help protect motorists and pedestrians from a line of sight 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR obstruction due to a hedge, tree, fence or other visibility barrier. The ordinance states, “…any obstruction more than two feet in height above the level of the sidewalk or ground elevation is defined as a public nuisance.” Whenever the Traffic Commission finds a public nuisance (Vision Triangle Violation) on residential, commercial or mixed-use property, a notice of abatement is issued to the property owner. •Municipal Code Section 12.16 – Community Tree Program – The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 12.16 is designed to preserve, enhance and revitalize the City’s urban forest. The Community Tree Program sets forth guidelines and policies with regards to: Street tree requirements for new development; Landmark Trees; Responsibility for tree-damaged sidewalks and public improvements; Privately owned trees affecting the public right-of-way; Tree removal in residential, mixed-use and commercial zones; Public utility company requirements; Installation, maintenance and removal of trees relating to property development. Regulated trees include: street trees within the public right-of-way fronting the property, Landmark trees and any Oak trees with a trunk width over twelve (12) inches in diameter when measured four and one half (4 ½) feet from the base. 2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires a statement of a project’s objectives and Section 15124(b) requires that the statement of objectives includes the underlying purpose of the Project. Major objectives of the Project include: 1) To designate appropriate land uses and design guidelines within the Specific Plan that will guide future development within the Project site; 2)To provide for historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that both complement and augment the existing uses in the City; 3)To comply with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy AG 14.2 with the protection and preservation of offsite agricultural lands; 4) To set forth a development plan(s) capable of underwriting the cost of public and private infrastructure and capital improvements proposed as part of the Specific Plan; and, 5)To promote orderly and attractive community development in the context of existing neighborhoods and in recognition of future development in the vicinity. 2.6 PROJECT OVERVIEW Adoption of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan would involve required approvals from the City and other public agencies as described below in Section 2.6.1, Required Approvals, including a General Plan and Land Use Map amendment; Development Code and Zoning 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-11 Final EIR Map amendment; Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Creek Locations Map amendment; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Subarea 2); and Conditional Use Permit (Subareas 1 and 3). The following sections provide detailed descriptions of major Project components outlined in the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, which include: 1)Establishment of a land use plan and design concepts for the properties within the Specific Plan, consistent with the City of Arroyo Grande’s General Plan; 2)Sustainable design and development practices; 3) A circulation system with a new Project collector and residential streets, a residential alley, and offsite improvements to the existing East Cherry Avenue; 4)A drainage system designed to direct stormwater to historical points of discharge, as well as incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) methodologies and other methods of on-site infiltration and stormwater reuse; and 5) Extension of utility lines and infrastructure. 2.6.1 Required Approvals This EIR addresses the impacts associated with the following entitlements and reviews that would be required to implement the Project: •Amendment to the City’s General Plan and Land Use Map; •Amendment to the City’s Development Code and Zoning Map; •Amendment to the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Creek Locations Map; •Approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Subarea 2) and Conditional Use Permits (Subareas 1 and 3) •Lot line adjustment between Subareas 2 and 3; •Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Historical Resources Committee review; •Development Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding for process, fees, and fair share costs and timing for improvements. Other advisory bodies that could be involved in the Project’s development review include the Parks and Recreation Commission for the review of proposed parks and the Traffic Commission for review of proposed circulation and parking improvements. Other permits, required approvals, or participation agreements from public agencies include: •Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit; 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR •San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and air quality/greenhouse gas emissions regulation compliance; and, •Encroachment permits for possible short-term or permanent encroachments into the public rights-of way. 2.6.2 Specific Plan Development Standards The proposed Specific Plan outlines various land use and development standards as identified in the City’s General Plan and Development Code as a framework for residential, commercial, and mixed-use land uses within the Project site subareas. The proposed development standards are generally similar to the City’s established standards, but in some situations, height limits, setbacks, minimum parcel sizes, and other noted standards have been modified or added to meet the vision of the Specific Plan properties. The Specific Plan development standards are discussed further below. 2.6.3 Land Use Plan The proposed Project land use plan integrates the three subareas totaling 15.29 acres, including 2.16 acres of commercial mixed-use, 11.62 acres of residential (including 0.50- acre remainder), and 1.51 acres of neighborhood mixed-use (not including 0.50-acre lot dedication) as described in the sections below (Figure 2-3 and Table 2-2). In addition, the proposed Project includes transportation improvements along East Cherry Avenue and right-of-way to accommodate a new collector road, located between Subareas 1 and 2. Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses Subarea Current Ownership Land Use/Existing Zoning Proposed Land Use Proposed Zoning Proposed Acreage 1 SRK Hotels Mixed-Use/Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU D-2.11) No change No change 2.16 2 Mangano Homes, Inc. Agriculture/ Agriculture Single-family Residential - Medium Density Specific Plan Overlay Village Residential (VR) 11.62 (-.50)1 3 Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) Agriculture/ Agriculture Mixed-Use Specific Plan (MU-SP) Overlay Village Mixed- Use (VMU) 1.51 (+.50)1 Total Acreage 15.29 1 Subarea 2 land use plan results in a +1-lot remainder (.50 acres). The remainder lot would be merged with Subarea 3. Therefore, MU-SP applies to a 2.0-acre future parcel configuration. 2-13 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 2.6.3.1 Subarea 1: Traffic Way Mixed-Use Subarea 1, the western 2.16-acre portion of the proposed Specific Plan, is bound by Traffic Way and is part of the southern commercial gateway to the City. The property is currently zoned TMU D-2.11. Uses allowed within the TMU zone are limited to automobile and light truck sales and services and related automotive parts stores, repair shops, and similar vehicle sales, services and accessory uses. The Applicant proposes hotel and restaurant uses for this subarea and would be subject to a CUP. A finding that vehicle sales and services and/or similar related uses prescribed are not feasible due to site specific building and/or property configuration must be made to allow for the noted uses. SRK Hotels proposes a three-story, 46,800 square foot (sf) hotel with 90 to 100 units and a one-story 4,000 sf stand-alone restaurant (see Figure 2-4). The hotel would be up to 36 feet in height and No changes to the current TMU zone or D-2.11 Design Overlay are proposed; however, inclusion of this subarea would ensure coordinated development of required utilities and other infrastructure (e.g., water resources, waste water disposal, right-of-way improvements, drainage controls, and landscaping and lighting) within Subareas 2 and 3. A summary of development standards within the Specific Plan TMU district is provided in Table 2-3. Size: 2.16 acres Location: Southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue Existing Use: Undeveloped, limited agricultural production. Adjacent Uses: Vagabond Mobile Home Park (to the south) Proposed: 90- to 100-room hotel and 4,000 sf standalone restaurant Subarea 1, looking south towards Vagabond Mobile Home Park. Subarea 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-15 Final EIR Table 2-3. Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) District Development Standards Development Standard Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) Requirement Maximum Density Mixed-Use Projects New residential limited to live-work units in conjunction with allowed uses. Density determined by discretionary action. Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (gross) Minimum Lot Width 80 feet Front Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales determined through discretionary action. Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed-use district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use district, a minimum building setback of 20 feet measured from the property line shall be required for proposed commercial use.). Side Yard Setback 0 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed-use district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use district, a minimum building setback of 20 feet measured from the property line shall be required for proposed commercial use. Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales determined through discretionary action. Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the CUP process for visitor serving uses. Maximum building size is 50,000 square feet; a greater size may be allowed through the CUP process. Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum coverage of site is 75 percent. Maximum floor area ratio is 0.75. Site Design and Signs See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11. Additional sign standards also in Chapter 16.60 Off-Street Parking and Loading See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11 Exhibit A for shared parking locations. See Also Section 16.56.020. Exceptions allowed by Section 16.16.120 Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a. EAST CHERRY AVENUEEAST CHERRY AVENUEROAD AROAD A TRAFFIC WAYTRAFFIC WAY EXISTING COMMERCIAL USEEXISTING COMMERCIAL USEEXISTING MOBILE HOMESEXISTING MOBILE HOMESENTRYENTRYMONUMENTMONUMENTPROPOSED HOTELPROPOSED HOTEL90-100 KEY90-100 KEY46,800 SF46,800 SFPROPOSEDPROPOSEDRESTAURANT/RESTAURANT/RETAILRETAIL4,000 SF4,000 SFPATIOPATIOOUTDOOR DININGOUTDOOR DININGBIKE PARKINGBIKE PARKINGDROP OFFDROP OFFTRASHTRASHTRASHTRASHEAST CHERRY AVENUEROAD A TRAFFIC WAY EXISTING COMMERCIAL USEEXISTING MOBILE HOMESENTRYMONUMENTPROPOSED HOTEL90-100 KEY46,800 SFPROPOSEDRESTAURANT/RETAIL4,000 SFPATIOOUTDOOR DININGBIKE PARKINGDROP OFFTRASHTRASH2-4FIGURE060SCALE IN FEETNSubarea 1 Conceptual Site Plan2-16 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-17 Final EIR 2.6.3.2 Subarea 2: Proposed Village Residential This 11.62-acre subarea is proposed for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the site into 60 lots, including 58 single-family residential lots and a 0.35-acre neighborhood park located on a Home Owners Association (HOA) common lot. In addition, an approximately 0.5-acre lot remainder of Subarea 2 would be dedicated to Subarea 3, reducing the area of Subarea 2 to 11.12 acres. A 2- to 5-foot tall concrete retaining wall/drainage facility would be located along the southern boundary of the residential lots at the base of the hillside. Based on the number of dwelling units (58) multiplied by the average number of persons per household in the City of Arroyo Grande (2.4), the estimated population for Subarea 2 would be 140 persons. Access to the proposed residential development would be via East Cherry Avenue, which would be improved to correct existing deficiencies and accommodate Project-related traffic. A new primary collector road serving the residential lots and future buildout of the City would be located between Subareas 1 and 2. A secondary access would be located between Subareas 2 and 3. No direct access from individual lots to Cherry Avenue is proposed. Subarea 2 contains residential lots that range from 4,400 to 9,400 square feet. Residences on lots 1-24 (shown in yellow on Figure 2-3) would be limited to one story, while lots 25 through 58 (shown in orange on Figure 2-3) could be up to two stories or 30 feet in height. A summary of development standards within the Specific Plan Village Residential (VR) District is provided in Table 2-4. Size: 11.62 acres (with 0.50 acre remainder) Location: South of East Cherry Avenue Existing Use: Undeveloped, irrigated agricultural row crops including celery, lettuce, cabbage and broccoli. Adjacent Uses: Oak woodlands (to the south), Vagabond Mobile Home Park (to the west), single family residences along East Cherry Avenue (to the north) Proposed: 58 Single-family residences and a 0.35-acre neighborhood park Subarea 2, looking north towards East Cherry Avenue. Subarea 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 2-4. Specific Plan Village Residential (VR) District Development Standards Development Standard Village Residential (VR) Requirement Maximum Density (units/gross acre) 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre Minimum Lot Size 4,475 net square feet Minimum Lot Width 50 feet at building setback Minimum Average Lot Depth 88 feet Minimum Front Yard New Subdivisions of 5+ Lots1 15 feet to residential structure, 10 feet to porch, 20 feet to front loaded garage Infill and Additions Setbacks listed above or the average setback of structures to the street on either side and directly across block front for properties in the same district. Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback 5 feet Minimum Front/Street Yard Setback1 10 feet building, 5 feet to porch, 18 feet to garage Minimum Rear Yard Setback2 10 feet (1-story), 15 feet (2-story) Maximum Lot Coverage 55 percent at alley loaded residential structures, 50 percent at street loaded residential structures Maximum Height 30 feet or 2 stories, whichever is less; 14 feet for accessory buildings Minimum Distance between Buildings 10 feet, including between main dwellings and accessory structures Fencing Setback 5 feet from property line, 0 feet from access easement Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Lot Size FAR 0—4,000 square feet net 0.35 4,001—7,199 square feet net 0.55 7,200—11,999 square feet net 0.50 Parking for Single-family Homes3 2 spaces/unit within an enclosed garage 1 The East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourages varying setbacks by as much as 5 feet. 2 Infill development on a parcel within a previously approved project. Where the City has established specific setback requirements for single-family or multi-family residential parcels through the approval of a specific plan, subdivision map, planned unit development, or other entitlement, those setbacks shall apply to infill development and additions within the approved Project. 3 Chapter 16.32 Residential Districts Section 16.32.030 F. Special Use Regulations for the Village Residential District shall apply. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-19 Final EIR 2.6.3.3 Subarea 3: Proposed Village Mixed-Use The proposed Arroyo Grande Valley JWA land use plan for Subarea 3, the eastern 1.51 acres of the Specific Plan area identifies a private historically-oriented park that would highlight the Issei pioneers (first generation settlers) of Arroyo Grande. Proposed land uses would include historical residential and public assembly uses, and would provide expanded commercial use and residential density necessary for present and future economic sustainability of the property. Specifically, Subarea 3 would include limited commercial retail (farm stand), passive recreation (historic walking paths and gardens), limited residential (independent senior housing consisting of approximately 10 units), public and quasi- public community facilities (cultural archive and community center), visitor-serving (B&B guest house), and public assembly (heritage and demonstration gardens) uses, as well as related support amenities (e.g., onsite parking). While the current Subarea 3 includes approximately 1.51 acres, an additional approximately 0.5-acre remainder lot would be added via the Subarea 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and a future lot merger. A summary of development standards within the Specific Plan Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District is provided in Table 2-5. Size: 1.51 acres (without +0.50 acre remainder) Location: South of East Cherry Avenue Existing Use: Undeveloped agricultural row crops including celery, lettuce and broccoli. Adjacent Uses: Oak woodlands (to the south), residential neighborhood (to the east), single family residences along East Cherry Avenue (to the north) Proposed: Village mixed use with community center building, 10-unit senior housing building, retail space, historic orchard and Japanese cultural gardens. b lk h h Subarea 3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 2-5. Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District Development Standards Development Standard Village Mixed-Use (VMU) Requirement Maximum Density 15 dwelling units per gross acre Minimum Lot Size 5,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width 40 feet Front Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet Rear Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. 10 feet required when the project abuts a residential district. Side Yard Setback 5 feet when the project abuts a residential district for single-story structures and 10 feet is required, on one side, for a multiple stories.1 Street Side Yard Setback 0 - 15 feet. Building Size Limits Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP process. Maximum building size is 10,000 square feet. Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum coverage of site is 100 percent. Maximum floor area ratio is 1.0. Site Design See Specific Plan Design Guidelines (see Design Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts2) Off-Street Parking and Loading See parking below. [See Section 16.56.020(C)]. Signs See Chapter 16.60 Signage PARKING3, 4 Senior housing – independent living Studio - 1 space /unit 1+ Bedrooms – 1 space/unit Public and semi-public buildings 1 space/5 fixed seats or 1 space/50 square feet of floor area designed for public assembly General retail 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area accessible to the public, excluding restrooms Hotels & motels, includes B&B 1 parking space/unit, and 2 parking spaces for the manager’s office, as applicable Outdoor sales 1 space/2,000 sf open area for the first 10,000 sf, then 1 space/5,000 sf greater than 10,000 sf 1 The proposed archive building is exempt from these requirements, as it will be reconstructed in the original location of the former hall building. 2 Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4) are noted for reference only, as the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines shall prevail. 3 Parking required for residential use in mixed-use projects does not need to be covered. See Municipal Code Section 16.56.060 Item 1. 4 Required parking may be reduced pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.56.050. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-21 Final EIR 2.6.3.4 Proposed Park Proposed areas for parks are derived from policies and standards in the Parks and Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan. The Parks and Recreation Element requires developers to provide land and/or pay in lieu fees for the acquisition and development of park and recreation facilities based on the local standard of four acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (City of Arroyo Grande, 2001). The proposed residential development for Subarea 2 includes a 0.35-acre recreational amenity located midpoint within the proposed subdivision on the HOA common lot in the western portion of Subarea 2. The design for this neighborhood park would be developed to serve the day-to-day needs of the new neighborhood by including such amenities as playgrounds suited for primary school age children and areas for passive recreation (e.g., pathways, seating, and BBQ areas). The Applicant for Subarea 2 has also included in the development plans the dedication of a 15-foot wide area extending along the northern edge of the north-most interior residential street for public use. This area would consist of narrow landscaped space with a meandering pathway directly adjacent to the private property lines of residences along the interior residential street. Refer to Section 3.9, Recreation for further discussion of recreation resources within the Project site. The proposed improvements to Subarea 3 include passive recreational amenities such as a cultural gardens, as well as related educational activity areas to preserve and archive the historic agricultural contributions of the Japanese Americans to the City of Arroyo Grande, Within Subarea 2, public space adjacent to interior residential homes consists of landscaped areas and a meandering sidewalk. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-22 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR which may address park-related demand based on Subarea 3 population needs. The development plan for Subarea 3 contains a mixture of visitor-serving opportunities, including publicly accessible structures within three main garden zones – a Japanese cultural garden, a farm garden, and a California native garden. The Japanese cultural garden would include a structure for the depository of cultural artifacts and history, including an outdoor educational classroom set among a traditional Japanese garden. The farm garden, a mixture of fruit trees, raised vegetable beds, and edible native herbs and flowers, would also house a senior housing component and a commercial kitchen to facilitate the preparation of the locally grown produce. A community hall and guest house (similar to a B&B) would be situated within the California garden that will include a native grass area for play and group gatherings. 2.6.4 Project Design The proposed Project is intended to be consistent with the City’s existing guidance documents: Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4), inclusive of the Village Residential District and the Village Mixed-Use District (albeit, the properties are not currently in or adjacent to the existing overlay area), and the Design Overlay District (D-2.11) pertaining to Subarea 1. In addition, these standards address the unique nature of the Subarea 3 property and a contemporary interpretation of the historic character of the property. The proposed standards take their cue from the Japanese art, called wabi-sabi, of finding beauty and tranquility in simple things and in nature (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). Future development pursuant to the Specific Plan would be consistent with the following design principles: •Preservation of habitat areas and trees – Existing trees shall be evaluated for their health and vigor and incorporated into project design(s). Habitat areas (e.g., man-made drainage features that have established riparian vegetation) shall be preserved and/or enhanced. •Public space – Public space should be integrated into the individual project designs to promote pedestrian scale and character, and a sense of place. Residential neighborhoods shall be designed with common areas with consideration for both passive and active recreational components, as applicable. •Pedestrian enhancement – Residential development should foster neighborhood connectivity through the design of streets, sidewalks/pathways, and alternative modes of transportation. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-23 Final EIR •Building design and social interaction – Design features such as porches, front yards along streets, entries facing public walkways should be incorporated into the residential design to strengthen neighborhood atmosphere. •Water conservation – Designs shall incorporate low water use fixtures and appliances, appropriate landscape design, low volume irrigation systems, drought tolerant native or nonnative, non-invasive plant material. •Low impact development (LID) – Various design strategies shall be employed to reduce impacts to water quality and drainage. •Minimize air quality impacts – All development shall include various measures to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to an overall cumulative air quality. The Specific Plan’s architectural design guidelines reflect the distinct differences between the future single-family residential development in Subarea 2 and the future mixed-use development in Subarea 3. Development in Subarea 1 would be subject to the Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District (D-2.11) that pertain to the Traffic Way Mixed-Use Area. 2.6.4.1 Landscape Design The proposed landscape design is intended to provide a sense of continuity between the varied future uses, yet recognize the uniqueness of the individual subareas. Exterior landscape architectural treatments, including both hardscape and softscape elements, would provide a unifying theme to the physical design of the varying uses, while maintaining individual design expression. Streetscape design and materials in the public right-of-way and proposed interior streets would include a unifying palette of vegetation and tree selection. Street trees would be chosen from the City’s list of acceptable street trees to provide a sense of consistency in the neighborhood. Landscape plant selections would conform to macro- and micro-climatic requirements. In general, plant material would be native and/or drought tolerant to the greatest extent possible. Invasive non-native species would be prohibited. Street trees and related parkway plantings would include a palette of species and landscaping appropriate in scale and species for each street type. Street trees would be located on both sides of the streets and be spaced 35 feet on center. Each street would have one dominant species of street tree for in-sidewalk planters or parkways, with alternate tree types for any in-street parking space trees and planted medians. Large canopy, deep-rooted 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-24 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR street trees would be used on all streets, per the City of Arroyo Grande Parks Division Tree List (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). 2.6.4.2 Energy Conservation and Site and Building Design The Specific Plan considers and employs the following conservation design techniques to further energy conservation. 1.Site Design Considerations •Situate lots and roads to minimize building exposure to the east and west. •Orient a building so that the longest building side faces north/south. •Design roof awnings to maximize sunlight exposure in the winter and shading in the summer. •Build structures close together to create a wake in the wind (weakening wind velocity) to help save heating costs. •Design streets and stagger lots to create wind disturbances that will save heating costs. 2. Landscaping and Other Site Design Considerations •Preserve or install shade trees to reduce heating and/or cooling costs. •Specify trees and shrubs, typically evergreens, as a windbreak to reduce annual fuel costs. •Consider opportunities for alternative energy production, such as solar, when planning the landscape. •Eliminate turf areas in single-family residential designs with an allowance for turf grass in recreational areas only. •Encourage the use of gray water systems for individual residential lots pursuant to the 2013 California Plumbing Code Chapter 16 Section 1602.2 et seq. 3. Building Dynamics •Create a well-insulated and airtight seal around the building, including operable windows. •Consider available technologies to reduce energy consumption including, but not limited to, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermostats, lighting fixtures, water fixtures and appliances, and alternative energy sources. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-25 Final EIR The Subarea 2 proposed site design includes a minimum “Tier 1” energy efficiency rating (i.e., 15 percent greater energy performance than state and local standards (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). 2.6.4.3 Signage and Lighting The proposed Project entry signage design would be easily visible by motorists, pedestrian scale, and reflect the architectural theme and character of the specific development. Unless noted, specific standards for signage, including number of signs, sign dimensions, illumination, accessory, and incidental and supplemental signs would comply with the City’s Development Code, Chapter 16.60 – Signs. The proposed Project lighting design would provide for safety, utility and decoration. Lighting fixtures and their operations would comply with the City’s Development Code Chapter 16.48.090 and standards promulgated by the International Dark-Sky Association/Illuminating Engineers Society Model Lighting Ordinance. Street lighting designs would be approved by the City Engineer, as appropriate to local codes and utility company requirements. In general, lighting fixtures would be downward-facing, fully shielded, and recessed to reduce spill and glare and preserve the starry night sky. Fixtures for the illumination of streets and public spaces would be energy efficient light-emitting diode (LED) (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). 2.6.5 Circulation and Parking 2.6.5.1 Proposed Vehicular Circulation Circulation throughout the Project site would consist of a new collector and residential streets, a residential alley, and offsite improvements to the existing East Cherry Avenue, including Class II bicycle lanes (Figure 2-5). The Project would include four principle vehicular circulation features as described below (Figures 2-6 through 2-7): •East Cherry Avenue – Offsite improvements to the existing two-lane East Cherry Avenue include upgrades to the right-of-way in the form of pedestrian sidewalks, parkways, parking, and Class II bicycle lanes. The approximately 0.25-mile segment of East Cherry Avenue between Traffic Way and Pacific Coast Railroad Place would be widened to approximately 48 feet and then would taper back to the existing width east of the intersection with Pacific Coast Railroad Place. This segment would be developed to collector street standards to include 5-foot Class II bicycle lanes in each direction, and street parking on both sides of the street. The 2-26 East Cherry Avenue Collector Project Collector 6’-0” Existing Sidewalk on North Side 8’-0” Parking 5’-0” Bike Lane 5’-0” Bike Lane 5’-0” Parkway 5’-0” Sidewalk* *8’-0” sidewalk on commercial frontage. 8’-0” Raised Parking (Tree Well Beyond) 11’-0” Travel Lane West Bound 11’-0” Travel Lane East Bound 64’-0” Project R.O.W. 5’-0” Future Sidewalk 5’-0” Future Parkway 5’-0” Future Bike Lane 5’-0” Future Travel Lane 2’-0” Paved Shoulder 5’-0” Parkway 5’-0” Sidewalk 8’-0” Bike Lane 12’-0” Travel Lane 44’-0” Proposed R.O.W. – Subarea 2 64’-0” Project R.O.W. 22’-0” Proposed R.O.W. – Subarea 1 12’-0” Travel Lane 2-6 FIGUREEast Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Collector Road Sections 2-27 Residential Interior Street with Parkway Residential Interior Street without Parkway Residential Alley 8’-0” Parking 5’-0” Detached Sidewalk 2’-0” Landscaping Meandering Sidewalk 5’-0” 12’-0” Travel Lane 15’-0” Parkway 12’-0” Travel Lane 8’-0” Parking 5’-0” Detached Sidewalk 5’-0” Detached Sidewalk 5’-0” Landscaping 5’-0” Landscaping 12’-0” Travel Lane 12’-0” Travel Lane 3’-0” Driveway 3’-0” Driveway 10’-0” Access Easement 10’-0” Access Easement 2-7 FIGUREEast Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Residential Interior Road Sections 2-28 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-29 Final EIR proposed sidewalk along East Cherry Avenue adjacent to the Project site would be 5 to 8 feet in width and would include a 5-foot planter median to buffer the sidewalk from the roadway. •Subarea 2 Collector – A new two-lane collector located between Subarea 1 and Subarea 2 would include a Class II bicycle lane. This new collector would stub out to the Project site’s southern boundary for a future connection, and exit onto East Cherry Avenue. •Residential Interior Street – Two connecting residential interior streets are designed to provide access within the Subarea 2 single-family residential neighborhood. These streets are intended to serve residential and visitor uses and are scaled to appropriately fit the residential nature of the property. The residential interior street includes two sections: •Southern Street – Two 12-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking area, two with 5- foot wide landscaping parkways, and two 5-foot wide detached sidewalks on both sides of the roadway; and •Northern Street – Two 12-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking area, a 52-foot wide landscaped area parkway, and a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on one side, with a 15-foot wide parkway linear landscaping area with meandering 5- foot wide sidewalk on the other side. •Residential Alley – Two private residential alleys are designed to provide rear access to abutting lots and allows for a more pedestrian-oriented development with front doors/front porches facing the adjacent streets. The alleys measure 20-feet wide, with an access easement to each garage, and also connect to the proposed secondary access to East Cherry Avenue between Subareas 2 and 3. Project site access would include three full access intersections along East Cherry Avenue: 1) from the proposed Project collector street in between Subareas 1 and 2; 2) from the residential alley connecting with East Cherry Avenue; and 3) from a proposed driveway with Subarea 3. Limited vehicular access to Subarea 1 is expected to occur from Traffic Way with right and left turn ingress and right turn only egress (refer to Figure 2-7). The internal circulation system within Subarea 3 would include private driveways. Designs for Subarea 2 and Subarea 3 would include onsite fire and emergency vehicle access and circulation. All street standards would be reviewed and revised by the City Engineer, including optional features such as landscaped medians, curb bulb-outs and parkways, and/or street trees and similar design amenities when approved by the City of Arroyo Grande. Alternative street standards would also be considered. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-30 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 2.6.5.2 Parking Proposed parking for Subarea 1, to be depicted on conceptual site plan, will be required to comply with the existing standards for hotel and restaurant uses within the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Chapter 16.56. This would equate to approximately 122 spaces that would need to be accommodated within Subarea 1. Proposed parking for the residential uses in Subarea 2 would include two spaces per unit within an enclosed garage. In addition, 46 curbside parking spaces would be provided on internal streets and 18 curbside spaces would be provided on the south side of East Cherry Avenue, fronting the Project site (NKT Development 2015). Parking standards proposed within the Subarea 3 mixed-use district are summarized in Table 2-5, Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District Development Standards. 2.6.6 Stormwater Drainage System Proposed public and private storm drainage improvements would include collection and conveyance facilities to direct water to historical points of discharge within the Project site (Figure 2-8). The Project would include an onsite storm drain network that collects, detains, and releases storm water. The storm drain headwall inlet is proposed at the southeast corner of Subarea 2 from the existing drainage feature on Subarea 3. New 48-, 36-, and 18-inch storm drains would run along portions of the proposed residential interior streets, Subarea 2 collector, and East Cherry Avenue and would connect to the existing stub at the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. An existing potential storm drain connection also exists at the adjacent Vagabond Mobile Home Park along the western Project boundary. Subarea 1 includes a proposed stormwater detention facility located under proposed parking stalls. This stormwater detention facility would have a capacity to retain approximately 11,700 cubic feet of water onsite an infiltrated through underground infiltrators. Runoff from Subarea 1 would discharge into a 48-inch storm drain proposed along East Cherry Avenue. A new underground detention basin with a 21,400-cubic foot underground and a 5,200- cubic foot surface storage capacity would be located on the neighborhood park/HOA common lot in the western portion of Subarea 2 (NKT Development 2015). 2-31 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-32 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Based on an evaluation of current and historic conditions, and the determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the onsite agricultural drainage located at the southern boundary of the Project site is not a waters of the U.S. or a natural stream or river under jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (City of Arroyo Grande 2015d), the Project proposes to remove its status as a drainage way subject to City policies from the General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element’s Creek Locations Map COS-1. Stormwater drainage designs would comply with City’s Design Requirements for Post Construction Stormwater Management, as well as implement Low Impact Development (LID) methodologies (e.g., vegetated bio-swales, underground detention) and other methods of on-site infiltration and stormwater reuse (e.g., use of porous materials in paved areas, directing stormwater toward pervious areas, and roof-top rain barrel collection). A Storm Water Control Plan would be required to detail design and performance components, including calculations for pre- and post-construction runoff conditions, new impervious surfaces, water quality treatment performance requirements, description of all post-construction stormwater controls and management measures, and opportunities and constraints associated with implementation of LID strategies. Per the City’s Development Code, stormwater drainage design would be based upon the frequency of a 100-year storm. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations would be submitted for approval by the City Engineer (City of Arroyo Grande 2015d). 2.6.7 Utilities and Services Water, sewer, police, and fire services would be provided by the City. Natural gas service would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas). Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) would provide electric service. Cable television would be provided by Charter Communications, and telephone services would be provided by Verizon (NKT Development 2015). While the timing of development in the Project site is unspecified, it is anticipated that the backbone infrastructure improvements (e.g., water, wastewater, and stormwater conveyance systems) would be required prior to or concurrent with the initial phase of development of the subareas. This is to ensure coordinated infrastructure, whether public or private, be installed to serve all areas within the Specific Plan in a consistent and timely manner. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-33 Final EIR 2.6.7.1 Water The proposed Project would be served by existing municipal water supplies. Water main facilities that would serve the Project site include existing lines from East Cherry Avenue, which would lead to new 8-inch lines beneath the proposed Subarea 2 collector and residential interior streets. An 8-inch water line alternative is also proposed from Subarea 2 residential interior streets, east through Subarea 3, to connect to an existing water main in Launa Lane (NKT Development 2015). Two existing private agricultural water wells are located in Subarea 2. One of the wells would be made accessible to Subarea 3 for use as supplemental irrigation on the common area landscaping (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). New water mains and related infrastructure would be installed by the individual developers in the Project site under the guidance of the City Engineer. Individual tract maps and development plans would provide detailed utilities analyses to support specific land uses, and would be approved by the City Engineer. 2.6.7.2 Sanitary Sewer The Project would be served by the City of Arroyo Grande wastewater collection system for residential, commercial, and institutional buildings within the City. The City's collection system, including five wastewater lift stations, conveys raw wastewater to trunk mains owned and operated by the South San Luis Obispo Sanitation District (SSLOCSD). Wastewater treatment and ocean disposal is also provided by SSLOCSD (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). Wastewater systems for the proposed Project would be designed and approved by the City Engineer, with new 8-inch collection lines to be installed beneath the proposed Subarea 2 collector, residential interior streets, and residential alley to connect to the City’s mainlines, located in East Cherry Avenue (NKT Development 2015). 2.6.7.3 Dry Utilities Electrical service to be provided by PG&E, natural gas service to be provided by Southern California Gas Company, cable television to be provided by Charter Communications, and telephone service to be provided by Verizon would be installed and extended to meet existing connections as required by the City Engineer. Solid waste collection and disposal, including recycling services, would be provided by South County Sanitation. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-34 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 2.6.8 Offsite Agricultural Protection Measures Agricultural lands within the Project site are not under Williamson Act contract; however, this land is proposed for non-agricultural land uses and would be rezoned to allow for urban development. In order to offset agricultural resources impacts for Subarea 2 and in compliance with General Plan Policy AG1-4.2, the Project includes the purchase and preservation of 9.79 acres of agricultural zoned lands located within City limits. These lands are located at 1189 Flora Road, approximately one mile northeast from the Project site. This property would be subject to an agricultural conservation easement and additional agreements for water rights, and bicycle and pedestrian easements, offered by NKT Development to the City. These offsite agricultural protection measures, and the ability of this agricultural conservation easement to offset Project impacts to agricultural resources within Subarea 2, is further analyzed in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources. 2.7 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION 2.7.1 Phasing No formal construction phasing of the Project has been determined at this time. At the time of construction, each phase would be subject to permit review to ensure conformity with the approved East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan and consistency with applicable regulations. Each phase would include specifications to address the development activities to be performed during the phase and define specific mitigation measures and conditions of approval that would apply (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a). 2.7.2 Construction Activities Each phase of the Project would generally entail the following stages: pre-construction design and permitting, site preparation and grading, construction, and final landscaping. A list of equipment anticipated to be used during these activities are provided in Table 2-6. The 9.79-acre parcel at 1189 Flora Road is proposed for an offsite agricultural conservation easement. (Source Google Earth Pro) 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-35 Final EIR Table 2-6. List of Construction Equipment Typical Construction Equipment Backhoe Grader Boom Lift Loader Compactor (Roller) Miscellaneous Small Tools Concrete Pump (Tow) Office Trailers Concrete Truck Paving Machine Crane Scaffolding Dozer Scissor Lift Dump Truck Scraper Electric Man Lift Sheepsfoot Excavator Skip Loader Flatbed Truck Tractor Forklift Water truck 2.7.2.1 Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation for each phase would be performed through grading along proposed roadways, building pads, and installation of onsite utilities. Mobilization and staging of earth moving equipment would be required in order to bring the site and building pads to engineered elevations. During grading operations, standard dust control and construction runoff Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented. Additional requirements would be specified in detail during the design of final engineered drawings prior to issuance of grading permits. Subarea 1 includes approximately 12,900 cubic yards (cy) of cut for clearing, building excavation, and storm drain and utility infrastructure, and would use 6,000 cy of fill for finished surface elevations; approximately 6,900 cy of soils would be exported offsite. Subarea 2 is estimated to be 17,000 cy of cut and 11,000 cy of fill, over a total disturbance area of approximately 191,000 sf. Finished grade elevations would range between approximately 113 and 117 feet (NKT Development 2015). Activities would include but not be limited to: • Full mobilization and set up of onsite construction temporary facilities; • Movement, placement, and compaction of stockpiled soils; • Over-excavation and recompaction of soils at building pads; • Coordination of loading and trucking activities, truck routes and export sites; • Delivery, staging and storing of materials; 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-36 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR • Trenching and installation of utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, natural gas, electric, telephone, cable television, and irrigation lines); • Environmental monitoring, including fugitive dust control and implementation and monitoring of construction stormwater runoff; and • Monitoring and recording of best management practices (BMPs). 2.7.2.2 Onsite Infrastructure Improvements The construction of onsite infrastructure would include installation of underground site utilities, precise site grading, and paving of roads. Activities would include but not be limited to: • Trenching for underground wet and dry utilities; • Precise grading and compaction of soils for roadways; • Precise grading for curb and gutter installation; • Installation of concrete curb, gutter and site concrete; • Installation of base and asphalt paving of interior streets and parking areas; and • Lighting and landscaping. 2.7.2.3 Offsite Infrastructure Improvements Construction of offsite roadway improvements would occur along East Cherry Avenue fronting the Project site. This roadway segment would experience closures during construction phases. All work would be subject to traffic control, pedestrian protection, and notification plans (see Section 2.7.3, Traffic Control Plan). Project traffic control and pedestrian re-routing plans would be revised to reflect the changing conditions throughout construction. Underground site utilities would be connected to existing utility infrastructure and precise grading, concrete, underground utility work, and paving would be performed offsite. Activities would include, but not be limited to: • Traffic control and lane closures on an intermittent basis; • Trenching, installation, and roadway repair for underground wet and dry utilities; • Saw cut and demolition of the existing asphalt; • Precise grading and compaction of soils • Installation of base and asphalt paving; • Curb and gutter installation; and 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 2-37 Final EIR •Road striping, landscaping, and signage work. 2.7.3 Traffic Control Plan A Traffic Control Plan would be prepared as part of the Public Improvement Plans for each phase of development to include site preparation and ongoing construction activities. The Traffic Control Plan would be modified to reflect changing conditions of construction activities throughout the Project. The plan would include the following: •Road Closures – East Cherry Avenue along the length of the Project site could experience periodic closures for the construction of offsite improvements. The Traffic Control Plan would be revised to reflect changing conditions throughout Project construction. •Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety – Vehicular and pedestrian protection (pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 33, §3303), lane establishment, parking area(s), access routes, truck circulation and semi-permanent signage would be established. All construction activities would be staged within a secured construction area. •Business Notification – A Business Notification Plan would be prepared and would include individual business notification, meetings to communicate specific activities and schedules. •Construction Scheduling – Timing of construction activities, such as truck hauling, road closures, etc., would be addressed to minimize disruption of traffic flow. Construction activities would be limited to City-approved working hours. •Construction Traffic – A construction traffic routing plan would address heavy equipment and vehicles such as haul trucks during construction. Truck traffic would be kept to a minimum during heavy commute times whenever possible. •Construction Parking – A Construction Parking Plan would be prepared for construction personnel, delivery, etc., defining onsite and offsite parking, hours of operation and contacts, and miscellaneous protocol. All required parking and material staging are anticipated to be accomplished on site and within the traffic controlled or delineated areas. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.0-1 Final EIR 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section discusses the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) and identifies mitigation measures for impacts found to be potentially significant. Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (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 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Through this process, the City of Arroyo Grande (City) determined that the EIR analysis would focus on the following resource areas: • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Land Use • Agricultural Resources • Noise • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Recreation • Biological Resources • Transportation and Traffic • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Public Services • Hydrology and Water Quality • Other CEQA Considerations This section of the EIR addresses the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project for the resources listed above. 3.0.1 Impact Classification 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. • A significant 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. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.0-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Determinations of significance levels in the EIR are made based on impact significance criteria and CEQA Guidelines for each environmental resource. 3.0.2 Mitigation Measures Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, where potentially significant environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR, feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or minimize the severity of those impacts are identified. The mitigation measures are identified as part of the analysis of each impact topic in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this EIR. 3.0.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis The CEQA Guidelines 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines further state that the individual effects can be various changes related to a single project or the change involved in a number of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Guidelines allow for the use of two different methods to determine the scope of projects for the cumulative impact analysis: • List method – A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). • General Plan projection method – A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the scope of projects for cumulative impact analysis can include a summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. 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 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.0-3 Final EIR 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. A list of planned and pending projects is used to assess cumulative project impacts (Table 3.0-1). Cumulative impacts associated with a particular resource are assessed in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this EIR. Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List 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 Residential Development 28 single-family homes Under Construction 10 NWC Fair Oaks Avenue/Woodland Drive 44,926 sf medical office building Pending 11 NEC East Branch Avenue/ North Mason Street 51-room hotel Pending 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-1 Final EIR 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES This section examines the potential for the proposed Project to create aesthetic and visual impacts as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as by the City’s regulations, policies, and design guidelines that are used to strengthen and protect its visual quality. Adopted City General Plan policies require that the potential development and design of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) must consider potential loss of open space, aesthetic impacts, and remain compatible with nearby visual resources. Much of the Project site is in an area of agriculture, and all of it is adjacent to residential and mixed-use development. The site contains scenic resources, including open undeveloped agricultural land and scenic1 views of the Santa Lucia Mountains to the east and southeast. Illustrations of the site and the surrounding visual context are provided later in this section. 3.1.1 Environmental Setting 3.1.1.1 Regional Visual Character The Project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City adjacent to an urban residential area. The westernmost portion of the site is as close as 570 feet from U.S. Highway 101. The City is the southernmost portion of a continuous urban area within the County of San Luis Obispo made up of the nearby communities of Grover Beach, Oceano, Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach, known collectively as the Five Cities. Being adjacent to an arterial roadway and located on generally level ground, the Project site can easily be seen 1 As identified by Policy C/OS1-1.1 of the General Plan, a scenic resources may refer to agricultural land, open space, hillsides, ridgelines, woodlands, wetlands, and other important resources identified by this policy. East Cherry Avenue Project site as seen from its southwest boundary looking towards the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. Brief glimpses of the Project site are visible from the northbound segment of U.S. Highway 101 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR from both public viewsheds (roadways), such as East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way, and private residences such as those looking over the Project site from the hillside mesa to the south along Trinity Avenue. Vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists traveling along Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue experience the highest exposure to public views of the site. Passing views from the U.S. Highway 101 northbound corridor exist but the site is not visible from southbound lanes due to topography, mature highway landscaping, and highway/bridge infrastructure. The southeast portion of the City is characterized by rural residential development and cultivated agriculture uses, while more urban development envelops the northern, western, and central portions of the City. The Project site is a part of a fragmented chain of agriculturally-oriented lands in the southeastern portion of the City. The hillside adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the site provides an overlook of the City to the north, transitioning to mid- and long-range hillsides and mountain views to the east and south. Areas to the east and south of the site just beyond the City’s limits consists of minimally developed land, while areas to the north and west have been largely developed, particularly along the coastal region. 3.1.1.2 Visual Character of the Project Site and Surroundings The Project site is situated within the southern portion of the City east of, and adjacent to, the southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. The site is located on level ground bordered to the south by the foot of a north-facing hillside vegetated by oak trees and native shrubs. This landscape is framed to the west by mid-range views of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. Adjacent lands are mainly developed with residential and mixed uses; the Project site contrasts with adjacent residential uses as undeveloped land that includes agricultural production. Along Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue, the flat undeveloped Subarea 1 and agricultural field Subarea 2 are fully visible. Along East Cherry Avenue, the full north facing oak woodland hillside with views of the St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church and Trinity Avenue homes are visible. The under-developed Subarea 3, with remnant structures (e.g., a small storage The St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church sits at the top of an oak woodland hillside at the southeastern edge of the Project site. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-3 Final EIR structure, a mobile home, and storage for a few boats) is partially hidden behind a thick tree line along its northern, southern, and partially along its western boundaries, as well as the wooden fences of adjacent residences along its eastern boundary. Traffic Way The Project site is bordered to the west by Traffic Way. Traffic Way is a north-south oriented three-lane road (one lane in each direction with a shared center turn lane) with marked bicycle lanes and street parking on both sides of the road. In total, the width of Traffic Way is approximately 60 feet. This roadway serves as the entry to the City and as a primary southern collection street and is designated as Highway-Arterial in the City’s Circulation Element. At its southernmost terminus, the roadway conveys traffic exiting northbound from U.S. Highway 101, and serves as a gateway to the City of Arroyo Grande, which leads directly to the business and residential neighborhood collector roads transected by Traffic Way. The Project site is highly visible from this location and can be viewed by motorists exiting the U.S. Highway 101 as well as those traveling northbound along the highway. Adjacent to the southwest border of the Project site along Traffic Way is the Vagabond Mobile Home Park. The 3.75-acre mobile home park consists of 35 unit spaces for small mobile homes and recreational vehicle (RV) parking. The mobile home park is located elevated above the Project site to the southwest, affording views to the Project area as well as scenic views of the Santa Lucia Range across the Project site. East Cherry Avenue East Cherry Avenue is an approximately 20-foot wide, east-west running two-lane street that provides access to and from residential suburbs, as well as the Project site. On the north side of the street are small town businesses, the Five Cities Swim School, and single- family residences. The single-family residential lots located on the north side of East Cherry Avenue range between 6,000 square feet (sf) to 11,000 sf in lot size. The homes (Looking south towards the U.S. Highway 101 off- ramp) Motorists exiting the highway are placed directly on Traffic Way, the arterial roadway for the south-eastern region of the City, with the Vagabond Mobile Home Park which sits adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project site. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR located on these parcels tend to range from 900 sf to 2,400 sf in size, are one to two stories in height, and are somewhat eclectic in architectural character; many contain bungalow, contemporary, and ranch styles. These homes were primarily built between the 1940s and 1990s and are in varying conditions of maintenance. The Project site is adjacent to, and south of, the southern boundary of East Cherry Avenue, which spans an approximate 1,378-foot distance from Traffic Way to the adjacent residential neighborhood along the eastern border of the site. Looking east, one can see mid-range defined views of the peaks of the Santa Lucia Range. East Cherry Avenue continues past the Project site to provide access to more residential areas before turning into a level unpaved road used to access agricultural lands farther to the east. Trinity Avenue Trinity Avenue is located to the south of the Project site, along the ridge of the adjacent hillside, and serves as a two-lane street which provides access to the residential Village Court cul-de-sac and St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church. The church and several residences located on the north side of Trinity Avenue and Village Court have generally medium-to- high quality, elevated views, overlooking the City and downtown areas, including the Project site. These residential lot sizes range between approximately 10,500 sf to 35,300 sf and are developed with single-family residences, with customized interpretations of craftsman and Victorian architectural styles, consisting of primarily of two-story residences between approximately 2,000 to 3,000 sf in size. 3.1.1.3 Vistas and Scenic Highways A scenic vista is a view of natural environmental, historic, and/or architectural features possessing visual and aesthetic qualities of value to the community. The term “vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area. No designated scenic vistas occur in the Project area or its vicinity. Looking northeast down East Cherry Avenue from the intersection of Traffic Way, the Project site, located on the right side of the road, is across from commercial and residential uses. The Santa Lucia Mountains are visible in the background. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-5 Final EIR The California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) protects state scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. According to the California State Scenic Highway Program, no state-designated scenic highways occur within or adjacent to the City (California Department of Transportation 2015). The 2001 Integrated Program EIR identified the segment of the U.S. Highway 101 near the site as scenic (City of Arroyo Grande 2001); however, this segment has not been designated as such by the City, County, nor State. 3.1.1.4 Light and Glare, and Nighttime Lighting Nighttime lighting conditions vary throughout the City, from heavily lit areas of commercial development to more rural areas with little night lighting. Lighting and glare levels in the Project vicinity are typical for that of urban and residential areas. The majority of light and glare in the Project site vicinity is generated by nearby residential and commercial uses. Vehicle headlights, street lighting at intersections and along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way, and building lighting contribute to the existing light setting. Given phased development of along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way over time, street lighting along both corridors do not follow any set standards regulating space between light fixtures; street lighting ranges anywhere from approximately 200-500 feet apart and are between 25-35 feet in height. Sources of nighttime lighting or glare on the Project site include lighting from vehicle headlights, two streetlights adjacent to the site on the north side of East Cherry Avenue, and street lighting along Traffic Way. 3.1.2 Regulatory Setting 3.1.2.1 Federal No federal policies or regulations related to aesthetics and visual resources would apply to the Project. 3.1.2.2 State Caltrans Scenic Highway Program The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public rights-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity. U.S. Highway 101, located less than a quarter of a mile to the west of the Project site, is eligible for State Scenic Highway designation; however, it is not 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR currently designated as scenic by the State, the County of San Luis Obispo, or the City of Arroyo Grande. Senate Bill (SB) 743 Governor Brown signed SB 743 in September 2013 (Steinberg, 2013), which made several changes to CEQA for projects located in areas served by transit (Public Resources Code Section 21099). Under SB 743, a project’s aesthetic impacts are not considered significant impacts on the environment if: 1) the project is a residential, mixed use residential, or employment center project, and 2) the project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area. This provision for aesthetic impacts does not include impacts to historic or cultural resources. The proposed Project is a residential and mixed use development project, part of which is located on currently zoned agricultural land in the City, but is not considered to be a transit priority area and therefore is not exempt from consideration for aesthetic impacts under the CEQA process. 3.1.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan As the overarching policy document guiding development in the City, the Arroyo Grande General Plan contains policies to regulate all aspects of physical growth and conservation in the community. Relative to this analysis, the Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element of the General Plan contains policies to ensure that new development is compatible with existing visual context. Additionally, the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element includes policies to protect open space and minimize visual impacts on surrounding natural landscape and to protect scenic views. Pertinent policies from both Elements are listed below. General Plan, Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element Goal LU 11 – To promote a pattern of land use that protects the integrity of existing land uses, area resources and infrastructure and involves logical jurisdictional boundaries with adjacent communities and the County. Policy LU11-2 – Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. Policy LU11-2.4 – Require that new developments be designated so as to respect the views from existing developments; provide view corridors which are oriented toward existing or proposed community amenities, such as a park, open space, or natural features. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-7 Final EIR Goal LU12 – To protect components of ‘rural settings’ and ‘small town character.’ Policy LU12-3 – Preserve the scenic vistas and retain a feeling of “openness” in new developments. Policy LU12-3.5 – Require the provision of open space and recreation areas within the urban residential portions of the City. Within the rural residential portions of the planning area, emphasize the preservation of natural landforms and vegetation. Policy LU12-6 – Require that residential street design be sensitive to existing landforms, and minimize traffic volumes on local residential streets. Policy LU12-8 - Emphasize the incorporation of landscape themes and extensive landscaped areas into new development; provide landscaping and open spaces as an integral part of project design to enhance building design, public views, and interior spaces; provide buffers and transitions as needed; and facilitate energy conservation. Policy LU12-9 – Encourage the provision of custom homes or homes that simulate a rural, small town, custom home atmosphere. Policy LU12-14 – Development Code property development standards Design Guidelines revisions shall consider refinement to outdoor lighting design, height, placement and intensity levels to minimize unnecessary glare, energy use, intrusion onto adjacent properties or public spaces. Facilities such as night sky visibility, safety, security/motion and light sensor, controls, timers and aesthetic compatibility should be part of outdoor lighting design considerations. General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Goal C/OS1 – to protect visually accessible scenic resources. Policy C/OS1-1 – Identify and protect scenic resources and view sheds associated with them. C/OS1-1.1 – For purposes of this policy, a ‘scenic resource’ may refer to agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands, streambeds, and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment that are of a historic nature, unique to the City, or contribute to the rural, small town character of the City. Goal C/OS2 – To safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystems. Policy C/OS2-3 – Identify and designate Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) other public or private properties containing scenic resources or public vistas of scenic importance. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Chapter 16.48.090 Chapter 16.48.090 of the City Municipal Code addresses general development standards for the installation of new light sources. It is the primary goal of this ordinance to reduce the disruption of light cause by outdoor lighting, and to reduce glare and nighttime lighting to better preserve the visual properties of the night sky. Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District (D-2.11) – Traffic Way and Station Way The City contains specific design guidelines and development standards that apply to new development within the D-2.11 Design Overlay District. Subarea 1 is currently within this district. Development within this district would be subject to all site development standards within the Development Code. Building design is limited to three stories in height and must have a horizontal massing, including both pedestrian and vehicle-oriented features evident from public streets. Construction materials should be compatible with those used on adjacent developments. 3.1.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.1.3.1 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016 State CEQA Guidelines, the Project would result in a significant impact to aesthetics and visual resources if it would: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway; c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 3.1.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology Impacts to visual resources and overall Project aesthetics were assessed through field observation, notes, and site photography of existing resources; analysis of the site’s relationship to the surrounding community; review of the City’s existing policy framework 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-9 Final EIR for protection visual resources; and review of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines (Appendix M). Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were chosen for the site based on their location within high viewer exposure locations near sensitive receptors along East Cherry Avenue. A simulation of KVAs 2 and 3 were conducted by the applicant’s technical consultant to give a visual representation of what implementation of the development of Subarea 2 would look like from these locations. Simulations for KVAs 1 and 4 are unavailable, but impacts to views are discussed. To evaluate potential visual impacts, two primary factors were considered, visual impact susceptibility and visual impact severity, both of which are described below. Visual Impact Susceptibility Visual impact susceptibility is the degree to which existing visual resources could be impacted by development of a project. Three factors are considered in the evaluation of visual impact susceptibility: visual quality, viewer exposure, and viewer sensitivity. Together, these factors combine to create a statement of the likelihood that the existing landscape/site will be impacted by the project. Each of these factors is used to rate visual impact susceptibility. As a general guideline, a visual impact susceptibility rating of low is achieved if two or more of the three contributing factors are rated low. A visual impact susceptibility rating of high is achieved if two or more of the three contributing factors are rated high. A visual impact susceptibility rating of moderate is achieved for all other combinations of the three contributing factors. • Visual Quality is a measure of the overall impression or appeal of an area, as determined by the particular landscape characteristics. In this case, the quality is judged by the views of the Santa Lucia Range and natural hillsides to the east and south of the Project site. Variety, vividness, coherence, uniqueness, harmony, and pattern contribute to three visual quality classifications, indistinctive (low), common (moderate), and distinctive (high). Visual quality is studied as a point of reference to assess how compatible a given project would appear in relation to the established features of the setting. • Viewer Exposure describes the degree to which viewers are exposed to views of the landscape. Viewer exposure considers the number of viewers, the duration of the view, and the proximity of viewers to the subject landscape. • Viewer Sensitivity is a measure of the level of interest or concern of viewers regarding an area’s visual resources. It is closely associated with viewers’ 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR expectations for the area. Viewer sensitivity reflects the importance placed on a given landscape or urban area based on the human perceptions of the intrinsic beauty or aesthetic quality of the existing landforms and adjacent structures. Visual Impact Severity Visual impact severity refers to the degree of the negative effect of pertinent project characteristics on the existing landscape. In some cases this may include loss of onsite visual features and landmark structures. A determination of visual impact severity is made through evaluation of the visual contrast, project dominance, and view impairment resulting from a proposed project. • Visual Contrast refers to a potential project’s consistency with the visual elements of form, line, color, and texture already established in the landscape. Other elements that are considered in evaluating visual contrast include the degree of natural screening by vegetation and landforms, placement of structures relative to existing vegetation and landforms, distance from the point of observation, and relative size or scale. • Project Dominance refers to the project's relationship to other visible landscape components in terms of vertical and horizontal extent. A project's scale and spatial relationship to the existing landscape can be categorized as subordinate, co- dominant, or dominant. • View Impairment refers to the extent to which a project's scale and position result in the blockage of higher quality visual elements by lower quality elements. Key Viewing Areas The potential impacts of the proposed Project on the visual quality of the Project site and surrounding area, including those arising from the loss of open space and disruption of view corridors. Four KVAs are selected for analysis in the Project vicinity (see Figure 3.1-1). Oasis Associates prepared simulations of KVAs 2 and 3 for the proposed Project (refer to Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3) which are used to illustrate how the development of Subarea 2 may affect views and/or visual resources. The KVAs described below. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-11 Final EIR Figure 3.1-1. KVA Location Map Key Viewing Area 1: Subarea 1 from Intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue This KVA represents views of Subarea 1 of the Project site from the sidewalk at the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. Uninterrupted views of the Santa Lucia Range, natural hillsides, and the St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church are especially prominent. Motorists, pedestrians, visitors, and shoppers along Traffic Way have full view of these visual resources, as well as of the entire Project site (see Figure 3.1-2). Key Viewing Area 2: Subarea 2 Looking East along East Cherry Avenue This KVA represents views of the Project site from the adjacent sidewalk on East Cherry Avenue near its intersection with Traffic Way. This location shows the quality of the views of the Santa Lucia Range and natural hillsides for the adjacent residences and travelers of Traffic Way. With development of the Project, it is anticipated that this location would experience substantial increases in pedestrian traffic and loss of the views of the natural hillside with the development of two-story residential units (see Figure 3.1-3). Existing View Rendered View 3.1-2 FIGUREKVA 1 – Looking East from the Intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue Source: RRM Design. 3.1-12 Existing View Simulation* *While simulation depicts residences up to two stories, the Project will contain only one-story residences along East Cherry Avenue. 3.1-3 FIGURE KVA 2 – Looking East Along East Cherry Avenue Source:Source: Oasis Associates 2015. Oasis Associates 2015.Source: Oasis Associates 2015. 3.1-13 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Key Viewing Area 3: Subarea 2 Looking West along East Cherry Avenue This KVA represents views of the Subarea 2 site from the sidewalk along East Cherry Avenue across from Subarea 3. Residencies located across from the site have full view of the adjacent natural hillside and the St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church. Much like Key Viewing Area 2, this location would experience increased pedestrian traffic with implementation of the Project and loss the natural hillside views (refer to Figure 3.1-4). Key Viewing Area 4: Subarea 3 from East Cherry Avenue This KVA represents the view of Subarea 3 from the sidewalk along East Cherry Avenue adjacent from the property towards the eastern-most extent of the Project site. Currently, the vacant Subarea 3 lot is partially screened by trees which interrupt views of the southern hillsides. Proposed development of Subarea 3 would replace some of the existing trees and other vegetation located along the northern, eastern, and western sides of the subarea. However, new landscaping including gardens would be installed as well as a senior housing and community center and a parking area on the north most side of the subarea. Development of the proposed Project are expected to similarly limit offsite views from this KVA. KVA 4: Subarea 3 of the site remains mostly hidden behind trees and scenic views to the south are blocked by trees. Source: Google Earth 2016. Existing View Simulation* *While simulation depicts residences up to two stories, the Project will contain only one-story residences along East Cherry Avenue. 3.1-4 FIGURE KVA 3 – Looking West Along East Cherry Avenue Source:Source: Oasis Associates 2015. Oasis Associates 2015.Source: Oasis Associates 2015. 3.1-15 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Short-Term Construction Impacts Evaluation of construction impacts focuses on the short-term visual impacts resulting from Project construction, the presence of equipment and material storage, as well as alteration of the existing landscape by excavation and earthmoving. In a visual sense, short-duration construction impacts from the proposed Project would be obtrusive and out of character with the surrounding natural landscape. Long-Term Visual Impacts Long-term Project impacts focus on the visual impacts resulting from Project operation and the permanent presence of new structures and development. It should be noted that existing views can change over time. For example, trees that currently screen a project site could be burned during wildfire events or die from old age or disease. However, new landscaping would be installed and maintained to be part of the long-term landscape character of the area. Analysis of Visual Impact Susceptibility Visual Quality – The proposed Project would alter the existing scenic views of the Santa Lucia range and the natural hillsides eastward from East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. While no designated scenic corridors exist near the Project site, existing views of the Santa Lucia Range and natural hillsides mixed with views of a variety of developed residential and mix uses result in a moderate to high visual quality rating. Viewer Exposure – The Project site is highly visible to residents along East Cherry Avenue, the St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church, residents of the adjacent Vagabond Mobile Home Park, and travelers along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. Traffic Way serves as one of the primary arterial roadways of the City and experiences high volumes of motorized and pedestrian traffic. Based on the number of viewers and the close proximity of viewing points to the project site, viewer exposure is given a high rating. Viewer exposure would remain high after project implementation, with multiple elements of the project, including trees, landscaping, and buildings directly visible to travelers moving in both directions on both East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. Viewer Sensitivity – The Project site is located directly adjacent to residential homes along East Cherry Avenue that have an uninterrupted view of the natural hillsides located to the south. Additionally, current views of the site from Traffic Way are of moderate to high quality; development of the site has the potential to disrupt these views. However, higher 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-17 Final EIR travel speeds on the busy arterial, obstructions from existing urban developments and commercial buildings and signs viewed from Traffic Way limit travelers along these scenic resources. These factors result in a viewer sensitivity rating of moderate. Based on consideration of visual quality, viewer exposure, and viewer sensitivity, a visual impact susceptibility rating of moderate to high has been concluded. Analysis of Visual Impact Severity Visual Contrast – Currently, most of the Project site consists of open agricultural land bounded to the north by residential and urban development. With the development of the Project, the visual character associated with the Project site would change from rural to urban-suburban. However, a transition to a residential and urban development would be consistent with adjacent land designations and development within the City. The Project Design Guidelines indicate that the development of the Project would be of superior design, seeking to be consistent with surrounding visual character. Nevertheless, the Project would introduce new residences on land that is currently free of visual obstructions from travelers on East Cherry Avenue, as well as from private locations associated with existing homes on the north side of that street. In addition, the Project would locate a hotel and restaurant along the urban commercial section of Traffic Way, which would result in the obstruction or loss of views of the San Lucia Range from Traffic Way. Considering its relationship to both built and natural visual resources, the Project would result in a moderate level of overall visual contrast. Project Dominance – Due to the existing adjacent land uses, the Project would result in the co-dominance of the surrounding land uses. The proposed Project would result in the development and loss of open agricultural land, a land use not characteristic of the immediate vicinity. However, Project development would create a transitional zone of residential and mixed-use land uses compatible with existing residential and commercial uses. Considering the proposed designations and the development of the sites, the Project would result in a low level of Project dominance. View Impairment – Although the Project would be compatible with the types of urban development in the vicinity, Project development would nonetheless displace open scenic agricultural land and impair high quality scenic resources available across the site. Existing, agricultural views of the natural hillsides to the south for East Cherry Avenue 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR residents would be replaced by new residential structures and landscaping. Project Design Guidelines establish a maximum height standard for all residential units to 30 feet, a height that would obstruct views of the southern hillside. Existing views of the Santa Lucia Range to motorists and pedestrians along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way would be partially interrupted by new structures and landscaping. With regards to proposed building and landscape design, the Project would result in a high level of view impairment. 3.1.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would result in the following impacts to aesthetics and visual resources. Measures to mitigate impact, are provided. Table 3.1-1. Summary of Project Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact VIS-1. Implementation of the Project would result in adverse effects to the existing scenic resources present at the site and surrounding areas. MM VIS-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact VIS-2. The proposed Project would result in a significant change in the existing visual characteristics of the site. None required Less than Significant Impact VIS-3. Construction of the Project would create short-term disruption of scenic resources for the residents and travelers along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. None required Less than Significant (Short-term) Impact VIS-4. The proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime light, impacting the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light. MM VIS-4a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact VIS-1 Implementation of the Project would result in impacts to the existing scenic resources present at the site and surrounding areas, particularly the adjacent hillside and distant views of the San Lucia Range (Less than Significant with Mitigation). The proposed Project landscaping and development would modify existing views of the onsite agricultural lands, adjacent hillsides and views of the Santa Lucia Range that are currently available to the east. Consistent with the City General Plan, the generally moderate to high quality of these agricultural lands, mountains, and hillsides can be defined 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-19 Final EIR as scenic resources under Policy C/OS1-1.1. The Project site does not lie within close proximity to a designated scenic highway and development of the site would not result in any impacts to scenic resources within such roadways. Implementation of the proposed Project, could disrupt views of these scenic resources, most noticeably along East Cherry Avenue, for passersby and residents of the area. Despite the Project being divided into separate aspects associated with each subarea, the Project as a whole is subject to review by the City staff, as well as the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure compliance with the City’s applicable design guidelines (City of Arroyo Grande 2001), and conclude that the Project would result in minimal impacts to scenic resources. The impact assessment is organized by subarea, and is further discussed below. Subarea 1 Impacts: Subarea 1 of the Project site proposes the development of a three-story, 90- to 100-room key branded hotel totaling approximately 46,800 sf and a detached single-story 4,000 sf restaurant. Based on development plans for the site, implementation of the hotel and restaurant on Subarea 1 would disrupt distant mountain views present from Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue, as seen in KVA 1. Development within Subarea 1 would require compliance with the Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District (D-2.11) – Traffic Way and Station Way and would therefore be limited to three stories in height. Further, due to the requirement of review by the City staff and Architectural Review Committee, and implementation of MM VIS-1a, impacts to scenic resources from the development of Subarea 1 would be less than significant with mitigation. Subarea 2 Impacts: Development of the single-family residential units on Subarea 2 would block views of the natural coast live oak woodland hillside and southern hills for residents and travelers along East Cherry Avenue. In addition, of the Project would result in the loss of the agricultural lands present on Subarea 2 of the Project site. These agricultural lands are considered a scenic resource under City General Plan Policy C/OS1-1.1, and the loss of this scenic resource would result in potentially adverse impacts to the visual character and quality of the area. Design guidelines for the Subarea 2 development state that residential units would consist of both one- and two-story homes with maximum heights of 20 and 30 feet respectively (Appendix M). Project simulations for KVA 2 and 3 (present in Figures 3.1-3 and 3.1-4) illustrate how development of homes within Subarea 2 site would fully block views of the 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR natural hillsides located to the south for sensitive receptors along East Cherry Avenue, and existing partial views of the Santa Lucia Range would likely be further interrupted by the proposed Project from East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way.2 While the Santa Lucia Range would be considered a scenic resource as defined by Policy C/OS1-1.1, viewer exposure of this resource from KVAs 2 and 3 is lower moderate to moderate as views of Santa Lucia Range are distant, current views area already partially obscured by existing vegetation and development, and proposed development would not fully obscure offsite views by providing some visual breaks between structures and uses. As the Project and its design guidelines for the Subarea 2 property would require review by City staff and the Architectural Review Committee under the General Plan Integrated Program EIR (City of Arroyo Grande 2001), MM VIS-1a would ensure adequate review by the Architectural Review Committee to ensure that the Project adheres to goals and standards established by the City to adequately mitigate impacts to scenic resources. Therefore, impacts to scenic resources from the development of Subarea 2 would be less than significant with mitigation. Subarea 3 Impacts: The Subarea 3 site offers little in terms of scenic views from East Cherry Avenue, as much of the site is covered by large trees which disrupt views of the adjacent natural hillside, southerly natural slopes, and distant Santa Lucia Vistas. Development of the site would result in the removal of several some larger trees from the property and the addition of several structures whose designs have not been specified. With the development of this subarea, views of scenic resources from East Cherry Avenue are anticipated to remain the same and visual impacts to these resources would be minimal. By following Project design guidelines, review of the development by City staff and the Architectural Review Committee under the General Plan Integrated Program EIR (City of Arroyo Grande 2001), and implementation of MM VIS-1a, impacts to scenic resources caused by the development of Subarea 3 would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure for All Subareas MM VIS-1a The Architectural Review Committee shall review Project design and consider impacts to the scenic resources available on or adjacent to the Project site, with particular consideration to the Santa Lucia Mountains. This 2 While visual simulations depict two-story residences along East Cherry Avenue, residences along East Cherry Avenue are proposed to only be one story in height. See Section 2.6.3.2. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-21 Final EIR includes the review of building siting, height, massing, design, and setbacks. The Architectural Review Committee shall determine whether structures obstruct important views of scenic resources, and/or propose design alterations to reduce impacts to important views of scenic resources. Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall ensure design of the Project does not obstruct important views of scenic resources. The Applicants shall incorporate recommendations to protect scenic resources and/or views into the Project design prior to permit approval. Monitoring. The City shall ensure adequate protection of scenic resources present onsite, from the Project site, or from adjacent viewing areas/corridors during planning and design review. Residual Impact Implementation of the above mitigation measure and review by City staff and the Architectural Review Committee would result in a less than significant impact to scenic resources. Impact VIS-2 The proposed Project would result in a change in the existing visual character of the site with the change of the rural or semi-rural character to a mixed use and residential neighborhood (Less than Significant). Current land uses and agricultural operations characterize the visual nature of the site and contribute to scenic values of the urban-rural boundary of this region in the City. The current undeveloped agricultural nature of the site may provide desired visual character and agricultural views for adjacent residential developments, particularly those located along East Cherry Avenue, Village Court, and Trinity Avenue. Development of a hotel, restaurant, and residential housing units on the site would substantially alter the visual character of the site, moving from a rural-agricultural character to one associated with urban development. Although this would be considered a major transformation to the site, visual character of the Project would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area. The impact assessment is organized by subarea, and is further discussed below. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-22 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Subarea 1 Impacts: Subarea 1 of the Project site currently consists of fallow land that would be developed for commercial use by a three-story 90- to 100-unit hotel and separate single-story 4,000 sf restaurant. Land use along Traffic Way is characterized by Traffic Way Mixed-Use designation which primarily allows for the sale and servicing of vehicles, as well as other accessory use. Additional developments along Traffic Way include the Cherry Lane Nursery, Log Cabin Market, and several hotel/motels. Currently, the fallow area of Subarea 1 does not fit within the current and planned character of Traffic Way, and does little to contribute to the overall visual character of the region. Development of the site for hotel and restaurant use however, would comply with City design guidelines for Traffic Way, and result in a more visually consistent urban landscape. Therefore, impacts to the visual character of the Project site caused by the development of Subarea 1 would be less than significant. Subarea 2 Impacts: The current visual character of Subarea 2 is considered agricultural in character due to the small agricultural operations conducted within the urban-fringe region of the city, near urban neighborhoods. The Project site consists of agricultural lands that have been disconnected from the dominant agricultural areas of the City, and lie within a portion of the City now characterized by more urban neighborhoods. While the development of the site would result in the change of character from rural-agriculture to urban development, this change in character would be more consistent with the overlying visual character of adjacent areas within the City. Additionally, development of the site would adhere to City General Plan Policy LU11-2 as the proposed development would result in a transition of uses consistent with existing character of surrounding development. Subarea 1 proposes commercial uses consistent with uses along Traffic Way. The Project transitions to the east with residential and mixed uses consistent with surrounding residential densities and scales of use. Further, adherence to the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards and review by the Architectural Review Committee would ensure that the Project would not degrade the visual character of the vicinity. Therefore, the change in visual character of Subarea 2 to be more uniform consistent with surrounding land uses would result in impacts which would be less than significant. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-23 Final EIR Subarea 3 Impacts: Subarea 3 of the site consists of vacant land shrouded by large trees which present a more rural visual character than the surrounding properties. Development of this subarea would result in a change in visual character to one more dominantly characterized by urban development. Design of the site would consists of construction of buildings which follow traditional Japanese styles, multiple gardens of both cultural and native significance, and installation of grassy areas and a parking lot. The development of the site would result in the overall visual character being more consistent with the urban developed neighborhoods adjacent to the site and in the creation of the more uniform visual character of the southern Arroyo Grande region. Despite the change from a rural character, development of Subarea 3 would be much more consistent with the existing visual character of the region, and impacts associated with this would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact VIS-3 Construction of the Project would create short-term disruption of the visual appearance of the site for the residents and travelers along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way (Less than Significant). Construction operations of the proposed Project would result in unpleasant aesthetics of the site. Operation and parking of large machinery, grading and filling of the site, soil excavations, construction lighting, and other operational activities create disruptive scenes and may affect existing visual resources. Throughout construction of the Project, these activities may result in the deterrence of individuals looking upon the existing scenic resources. Despite these potential impacts, construction operations of the site are temporary, and visual resources would be impacted for the duration of construction. The visual changes created by the presence of construction equipment, disruption of site landscape, and unfinished structures would alter the visual character of the site during the construction period. While this impact would be adverse, it would be short-term, and is thus determined to be less than significant. Further, existing vegetation in some portions of Subarea 3 would partially screen construction activities and project landscaping would begin to screen some development from public viewing areas. Should site landscaping and 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-24 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR existing vegetation be subject to fire-related disturbance from future wildfires, impacts would be short-term and similar to those for construction. Due to the short-term duration of construction activities for all subareas, impacts to aesthetic resources associated with construction operations during Project development are considered temporarily adverse but less then significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measurements required. Impact VIS-4 The proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime light, impacting the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light (Less than Significant with Mitigation). The Project would result in the development of agricultural and vacant lands which do not possess any sources of artificial light, currently creating no additional impact to nighttime light. Development of the site would alter current lighting conditions, significantly increasing the amount of exterior lighting fixtures and light produced on the Project site. However, the site is located in an already urbanized portion of the City, adjacent to residential neighborhoods and the Traffic Way arterial, which consists of large amount of exterior light fixtures (e.g. street lighting, Mobil Gas Station, vehicular lighting, etc.). Significant sources of nighttime light would be generated by the Project, and despite the already impacted visual quality of the nighttime sky by surrounding developments, the Project area consists of open space land with no existing sources of light, and development of the Project would introduce new light sources which would contribute to decreased visual quality of the nighttime sky in the area. Several homes located along the northern sides Trinity Avenue and Village Court have prominent views of the Project site, and experience reduced levels of ambient light and glare due to the undeveloped agricultural character of the Project site. Development of the site would introduce new sources of nighttime light, ambient light, and potential glare that would potentially affect these homes more than adjacent land uses. In order to prevent additional adverse effects to residential properties, Project Design Guidelines state that exterior light fixtures would be shielded and directed downward to avoid light spill and glare, adhering with General Plan Policy Ag/C/OS.23 Additionally, all developments under the Project will be required to adhere to lighting ordinances 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.1-25 Final EIR established in Chapter 16.48.090 of the City Municipal Code, which establishes standards for outdoor lighting. Despite these standards, the Project would introduce a potentially adverse amount of new light sources which would disrupt nighttime views from surrounding land uses. To ensure compatibility with City regulations and standards regarding Project design, the Project would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee. During this review, Project Design Guidelines for Project lighting and other architectural features would be reviewed for consistency with City policies and regulations, and the Architectural Review Committee may make adjustments to Project designs to ensure consistency with these policies. During this period, implementation of MM VIS-4a would require the Architectural Review Committee to consider aesthetic and visual impacts associated with lighting, which would reduce potential impacts to nighttime views presented by the Project. Due to required review of the Project by the Architectural Review Committee and implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts associated with the creation of new sources of exterior lighting would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures MM VIS-4a Upon review of the Project, the Architectural Review Committee shall consider the minimization of the number streetlights along East Cherry Avenue to reduce lighting effects upon the visual quality nighttime sky. However, the Architectural Review Committee shall allow adequate streetlights and security lighting for public safety. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Architectural Review Committee shall ensure the Project does not introduce sources of lighting that would unnecessarily or excessively disrupt the quality of nighttime sky, while continuing to allow lighting for public safety and security. The Applicants shall incorporate recommendations to reduce nighttime lighting impacts into the Project design prior to development plan or permit approval. Monitoring. The City shall ensure street lighting proposed by the Project does not unnecessarily obstruct the quality of the nighttime sky while continuing to provide a sufficient amount of lighting to ensure public safety. 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES 3.1-26 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Residual Impact When combined with the proposed mitigation measure, review by the Architectural Review Committee would reduce residual impacts to nighttime views to less than significant levels. 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts The proposed Project, in combination with approved, pending, and proposed development in Arroyo Grande, especially those within the Historic Overlay District, would contribute toward creating a more defined urban environment in the City. Consistent with the General Plan Integrated Program EIR and with long-term buildout under the General Plan, the Project would be required to adhere to the design standards of the City General Plan and City Building Standards and would be subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, as well as final design review by the Architectural Review Committee. Therefore, although the visual character could incrementally change as development intensity increases, such change is consistent with the General Plan vision for urban environment and impacts to visual quality would not be considered cumulatively considerable. The overall aesthetic impact of cumulative development in the Project vicinity would be less than significant. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-1 Final EIR 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The following section evaluates the potential impacts of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) on site-specific and regional agricultural resources, including prime farmland located within the City of Arroyo Grande’s (City’s) limits. It also evaluates the Project’s consistency with the agricultural and open space land use goals, programs, and policies in the City’s General Plan and related planning policy documents, as well as relevant state policies and regulations. The analysis for agricultural resources uses Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) methodology to determine the significance of impacts, which are described below. LESA Model estimates for the Project are contained within Appendix D of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Agricultural resources consist of any farmland with potential for agricultural productivity. Important agricultural resources are identified by the State of California as sites containing superior or unique soil as identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), or Important Farmland as defined by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)1, or other important agricultural production properties. Such resources may be protected by agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts 2 to prevent conversion to non-agricultural use. 3.2.1 Environmental Setting 3.2.1.1 Regional Context Agriculture is a major production industry in the County of San Luis Obispo (County) with a gross production value of $903 million in 2014. Top crops by value include: strawberries ($205 million), wine grapes ($203 million), cattle and calves ($126 million), broccoli ($57 million), and vegetable transplants ($33 million) (County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures 2015). Agriculture production creates a multiplier effect, creating jobs and economic output in many other sectors of the local economy, including tourism, industrial, retail and commercial services. Agricultural resources in the vicinity of the City of Arroyo Grande are mainly limited to areas outside the City limits. 1 The FMMP assesses the location, quality and quantity of agricultural lands and monitors the conversion of these lands to nonagricultural uses. The FMMP classifies Important Farmland based on agricultural soil quality and current land use into four categories of important farmlands: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local importance. Important farmlands contain soils best suited for producing food and forage, particularly for producing high-yield crops. 2 A Williamson Act contract is an agreement between private landowners and the government to restrict specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments (refer to Section 3.2.3, Regulatory Setting, for additional detail). 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Agricultural activity in the vicinity includes irrigated row crops in level or gently sloping areas and livestock grazing in foothill areas. Nearby farmland in the County lies southwest of the City in Oceano, and northeast of the City along Arroyo Grande Creek. The City is located in the southwestern end of San Luis Obispo County, encompassing a total of 5.835 square miles (approximately 3,374.4 acres) of lands that are largely developed. The City contains approximately 369 acres of land zoned for agricultural use, equating to nearly 10 percent of land within the City limits, and contains approximately 500 acres of Class I and II soils (Laura A. Pennebaker 2009). 3.2.1.2 Local Context There are agriculturally zoned lands in the City approximately 0.25 miles to the northeast, and 0.20 miles to the west of the Project site. The Project site is bordered by nonagricultural lands, single-family neighborhoods to the north and northeast, lands developed with commercial uses along Traffic Way to the west, and the Vagabond Mobile Home Park and St. Barnabas Episcopal Church along its southern boundary. The areas located to the north, west, and east are zoned for urban uses by the City and listed as Urban and Built-Up Lands by the California Department of Conservation and are therefore ineligible for a Williamson Act contract (Department of Conservation 2010). Neither the Project site nor immediately adjacent lands are under a Williamson Act contract; although, there are Williamson Act lands approximately 0.5 miles to the south of the Project site. 3.2.1.3 Project Site The 15.29-acre Project site is located entirely within the City limits. The 2.16-acre Subarea 1 is zoned for Traffic Way Mixed-Use (a nonagricultural zoning district) and is currently fallow. The 11.62-acre Subarea 2 is zoned for agriculture, and currently contains commercial row crop production cultivated with broccoli, lettuce, celery, and parsley. Subarea 3 is zoned for agriculture, but is currently not utilized for agricultural activities. A portion of Subarea 1 and the entire Subarea 2 have historically been farmed with a variety of vegetable row crops. Irrigation for these crops is obtained from two existing onsite water wells located on the northeast portion of Subarea 2. Subarea 3 was Subarea 2 is currently used as agricultural land for the cultivation of row crops. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-3 Final EIR originally purchased in 1920 by the Arroyo Grande Japanese Welfare Association (JWA), and included two houses, two garages, and accessory buildings. The site has been host to a variety of uses over time, but was not known to be under commercial agricultural production. As designated under the FMMP, the Project site contains a total of 12.85 acres of “prime farmland” and 2.44 acres of land classified as “urban and built-up land” (Department of Conservation 2012; see Figure 3.2-1). Figure 3.2-1. Agricultural Resources within the Project Site Agricultural Soils within the Site The Project site contains a total of 14.0 acres of “prime agricultural soils” soils” as defined by the NCRS; these soils overlap the 12.85 acres of FMMP designated prime farmland. The NRCS Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, identifies soil types in southern San Luis Obispo County, including those which contain superior properties for agricultural production, known as prime agricultural soils. The NRCS designates such prime soils with a Soil Capability Class of I or II. Many soils are given a Capability Class of I or II only when irrigated, but otherwise receive a lower rating without irrigation. Soils in the Project site are comprised of Mocho Silty Clay Loam and two types of Zaca Clay 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR (see Figure 3.2-2). Mocho Silty Clay Loam contains a Soil Capability Class of I when irrigated and is considered Class IIIc without irrigation (Table 3.2-1). The first type of Zaca Clay contains a Soil Capability Class of IVe with and without irrigation. The second type of Zaca Clay present at the site contains a Soil Capability Class of VIIe with and without irrigation. Mocho Silty Clay Loam is considered a prime agricultural soil by the California Department of Conservation when irrigated, while both types of Zaca Clay are considered non-prime in irrigated and non-irrigated conditions (NRCS 2015). Figure 3.2-2. Agricultural Soils within the Project Site The Mocho Silty Clay Loam occurs on all 2.16 acres of Subarea 1, approximately 10.1 acres of Subarea 2, and approximately 1.74 acres of Subarea 3 (using proposed subarea acreages). The Zaca Clay (15 to 30 percent slopes) occurs on approximately 0.89 acres of Subarea 2 and approximately 0.02 acres of Subarea 3. The Zaca Clay (50 to 75 percent slopes) occurs on approximately 0.09 acres of Subarea 3 (see Figure 3.2-2). In summary, approximately 93 percent of the soils are considered prime soils when irrigated.3 3 Approximately 11 acres (73%) of the site is currently irrigated, with currently fallow areas in Subarea 1. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-5 Final EIR Table 3.2-1. Project Site Soil Capabilities Map Symbol Soil Name Acreage in Project Site Class Important Farmland Map Designation Slope % Surface Runoff Irrigation limitations IR NI 175 Mocho Silty Clay Loam 14.0 I IIIc Prime (if irrigated) 0 to 2 Medium Few limitations 225 Zaca Clay 0.9 IVe IVe Not Prime 15 to 30 Very High Very limited (slope and erosion) 227 Zaca Clay 0.1 VIIe VIIe Not Prime 50 to 75 Very High Very limited (slope and erosion) Notes: IR = irrigated; NI = non-irrigated. Source: NRCS 2015. Proposed Offsite Agricultural Resources The Project includes a proposal for offsite agricultural protection of a 9.79-acre parcel under an agricultural conservation easement. This proposed agricultural conservation parcel is located at 1189 Flora Road, approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the Project site. This parcel is located within the City limits, is currently zoned Agriculture and under cultivation, and contains comparable Class I prime farmland soils to the Project site. This proposal is made in an effort to mitigate the loss of prime farmland soils in Subarea 2 in compliance with Goal Ag1 of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan. On July 28, 2015, the City Council adopted the resolution determining that the Flora Road site constitutes as appropriate mitigation for the conversion of prime farmland in Subarea 2 4 (City of Arroyo Grande 2015). The Flora Road parcel includes a single residence and a well that, while in working condition, is considered unreliable. The City Council has recently approved a replacement well that is anticipated to produce a higher volume of water. It is estimated that the well would produce ample water for the residence and agricultural operations on the property, as well as a substantial amount of water that may be used by the City for irrigation purposes. In addition to the agricultural conservation easement, an agreement would include the City’s rights to water below the surface of the property, rights of access to such water, and the right to install and maintain wells on the property. 4 It should be noted that the City Council Resolution on July 28, 2015 is considered as mitigation only in reference to Goal Ag1 of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element and does not reflect the adequacy of mitigation for agricultural resource impacts identified under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes plans for a 15-foot wide bicycle and pedestrian path across the property and along Flora Road (not included within the 9.79 acres proposed for agricultural conservation easement). The proposed pathway includes a future path over Arroyo Grande Creek at Strother Park that would ultimately connect Huasna Road and Branch Mill Road. 3.2.2 Regulatory Setting 3.2.2.1 Federal There are no federal regulations or policies related to agricultural resources which apply to this Project. 3.2.2.2 State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) The California Department of Conservation established the FMMP in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and analyze the conversion of these lands throughout California. The list below provides a comprehensive description of all categories mapped by the California Department of Conservation (Department of Conservation 2010). • Prime Farmland – Farmland that has the best combination of physical and chemical features and is able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to sustain high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Statewide Importance – Farmland similar to prime farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. • Unique Farmland – Farmland with lesser quality soil that is used for production of the State’s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, which are found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been used for crops at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date. • Farmland of Local Importance – Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. • Grazing Land – Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-7 Final EIR Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres. • Urban and Built-up Land – Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or about six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and public administrative purposes; railroad and other transportation yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment facilities; water control structures; and other developed purposes. • Other Land – Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21060.1 PRC Section 21060.1 defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts under the FMMP. As stated earlier, the FMMP was established in 1982 to assess the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and analyze the conversion of these lands. The FMMP looks at agricultural land use and land use changes throughout California. Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, is promulgated in California Government Code Section 51200-51297.4. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Specifically, this legislation enables landowners who voluntarily agree to participate in the Williamson Act program, to receive assessed property taxes according to the income-producing value of their property in agricultural use, rather than on the property’s assessed market value. The Williamson Act program is administered by the California Department of Conservation in conjunction with local governments, which administer the individual contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10-year “rolling” period wherein no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. Each year the contract automatically renews unless a notice of non-renewal or cancellation is filed. In return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. An application for immediate cancellation can also be requested by the landowner, provided that the proposed immediate cancellation application is consistent with the cancellation criteria stated in the California Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Non-renewal or immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property. Participation in the Williamson Act program is dependent on county adoption and implementation of the program and is voluntary for landowners. The Williamson Act states that a board or council shall, by resolution, adopt rules governing the administration of agricultural preserves. The rules of each agricultural preserve specify the uses allowed. Generally, commercial agricultural uses are permitted within an agricultural preserve; however, local governments may identify compatible uses permitted with a use permit. California Government Code Section 51238.1 allows a board or council to deem compatible any use, without conditions or mitigation that would otherwise be considered incompatible. However, this may occur only if that use meets the following conditions: • The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of the subject contracted parcel or parcels on other contracted lands in agricultural preserves. • The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels on other contracted lands in agricultural preserves. Uses that significantly displace agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping. • The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open space use. 3.2.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan The City of Arroyo Grande’s adopted General Plan Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element outlines multiple policies designed to protect agricultural resources and prime agricultural land. The City’s General Plan sets forth specific requirements for the Project vicinity and Project site, as well as overall requirements for protection of 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-9 Final EIR agricultural land and required mitigation standards for loss of agricultural land. Policies relevant to the proposed project are listed below: General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Goal Ag1 – Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Policy Ag1-1 – Designate prime farmland soils that are not predominately committed to non-Agricultural developed as Agriculture (Ag) and/or Agriculture Preserve (AgP), whether or not in current agricultural productive use. Policy Ag1-1.1 – Prime Farmland Soils shall include all land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service land use capability classification whether or not the land is actually irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. (This definition is derived from the Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as reorganized and amended in 2000, Section 56064(a)). Prime farmland soils shall also include Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified in the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Services, outlined in the Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Part, September 1984. Policy Ag1-1.2 – Public facilities are permitted on agricultural and natural resource land when required by health, safety, or welfare of the public. Policy Ag1-1.3 – Either Agriculture or Agriculture Preserve zoning are consistent with the Agriculture classification of the plan. Policy Ag1-2 – Designate as Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) or County Rural Lands all nonprime Ag lands with important natural resource or open space values that the community intends to conserve. Policy Ag1-3 – Support existing programs and develop strategies to retain areas of farmland soils for agricultural use, and other Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) areas in a natural, undeveloped state. Policy Ag1-3.1 – Encourage Williamson Act participation and acquisition of Agricultural Conservation Easements by agricultural landowners. An inventory of parcels under Williamson Act contract and those with easements within the City shall be maintained by the Community Development Department and the status of those contracts/easements reported to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City’s objective shall be 100% of either Williamson Act enrollment of qualified parcels or agricultural conservation easement acquisition. The City’s aim shall be to maintain continuity of Ag and C/OS parcels and avoid fragmentation of areas having prime farmlands soils or non-prime Conservation/Open Space designation. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Policy Ag1-4 – Establish and apply a significance criterion (threshold of significance) for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, as provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, which considers loss of prime farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact. Policy Ag1-4.1 – Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their unavailability for agricultural use. Loss may occur through natural causes or development such as coverage (e.g., paving, construction of buildings, etc.), or conversion to urban/suburban use (including residential yards/gardens and recreation areas). Cessation of agricultural use shall not constitute loss so long as the parcel remains fallow or is allowed to revert to a natural undeveloped state. Site improvements that are intended to support agricultural operations – such as grading, irrigation or drainage facilities, unpaved roads, or farm buildings and structures – shall not constitute loss so long as the improvements do not substantially diminish the capability of agricultural operations on the parcel or within the area and the improvements are directly related to agricultural production on the site. Policy Ag1-4.2 – Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 and up to 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may involve, but is not limited to, dedication of a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement or other effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of location shall be determined by the City Council. The aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and contiguous to City boundaries, secondly within the Urban Land Use Element area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley within the Area of Environmental Concern. Other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council. Policy Ag1-4.3 – Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are geographically specific, the only means for mitigation to less than significant is preservation. The City’s aim shall be to maintain continuity of Ag and C/OS parcels and avoid fragmentation of areas having prime farmland soils. The City shall avoid development of prime farmland soil areas by direction growth potential to more suitable urban locations. Only after the imposition of available mitigation and consideration of alternatives to avoid the proposed action, may the City Council approve development on prime farmland soils subject to overriding considerations as permitted by California Government Code Section 15093. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-11 Final EIR City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.12.170(F) – Agricultural Land Conversion 1. The City shall require agricultural mitigation by applicants for discretionary entitlements which will subdivide or change the use of land zoned agriculture or agriculture preserve to any non-agricultural use. 2. Agricultural mitigation shall be satisfied by: a. Granting an agricultural conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction or other agricultural conservation mechanism to or for the benefit of the city and/or a qualifying entity approved by the city. Mitigation shall be required for that portion of the land which no longer will be designated or zoned agricultural land, including any portion of the land used for park and recreation purposes, that will 1) permanently protect prime agricultural and prime soils from development; 2) or will benefit preservation of agricultural land and operations through other means as determined by the city council. At least as many acres of prime agricultural land shall be protected as was changed to a non-agricultural use within city limits, or up to two times as many acres of agricultural land shall be protected outside the city but within the city's area of environmental concern, as was changed to a nonagricultural use, in order to mitigate the loss of agricultural land; or b. In lieu of conserving agricultural land as provided above if the City Council determines that the payment of in-lieu fees provide a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the general plan, agricultural mitigation may be satisfied by the payment of a fee, established by the City Council by resolution or through an enforceable agreement with the developer, based upon a farmland replacement factor of up to two-to-one (2:1) to be used for acquisition of a farmland conservation easement or farmland deed restriction. The in-lieu fee option must be approved by the City Council. The fee shall be based upon current appraisal information for the acquisition of a conservation easement on replacement land plus all related city administrative and legal costs. The in-lieu fee, paid to the city, shall be used for farmland mitigation purposes, with priority given to lands with prime agricultural soils located within the city; or c. Other mitigation measures may be determined acceptable by the City Council. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.2.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance With respect to agricultural resources, applicable sections of Appendix G of the 2016 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that a project would normally have a significant impact on the environment if it would: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use; b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; and/or, c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Further, with respect to agricultural land use and consistency with the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, this section uses the threshold in Appendix G of the 2015 CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project would normally have a significant impact on the environment if it would: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (see Section 3.7, Land Use for additional analysis on General Plan consistency). In addition, this analysis uses the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model as a basis for the determination of agricultural resource impacts. The LESA Model was developed as an amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. It is intended “to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process” (Public Resources Code Section 21095). LESA is a method used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors: two Land Evaluation (LE) factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality, and four Site Assessment (SA) factors provide measures of a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-13 Final EIR lands. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. • If the total LESA score is from 0 to 39 points, the scoring decision is “not considered significant”; • If the score is from 40 to 59 points, it is “considered significant only if LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points”; • if the score is from 60 to 79 points, it is “considered significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points”; or, • if the score is from 80 to 100 points, it is “considered significant” (California Department of Conservation 1997). 3.2.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology This section provides a discussion of the potential impacts to agricultural resources within the Project site, associated with the conversion of 14.0 acres of prime agricultural soils to urban development, including a hotel and restaurant on Subarea 1; 58 single-family residences on Subarea 2; and a community center building, 10-unit senior housing building, historic orchard, and Japanese cultural gardens on Subarea 3. The methodologies for analyzing the Project’s potential impacts to agricultural resources are based on the guidelines, policies, and procedures identified in the City General Plans, the FMMP, and the California Agricultural LESA Model. Data from the California Department of Conservation and the County Department of Planning and Building were accessed to obtain mapping information related to the Project. The Agricultural Soils Report prepared by NCRS, City of Arroyo Grande memos, and LESA worksheets are found in Appendix D. LESA scores for the Project site are summarized below in Table 3.2-2. The following methods were used to determine the extent and/or significance of the Project’s impact on agricultural resources: a) Identify onsite soils that would be impacted based on their NRCS designation of prime farmland. The NRCS defines prime farmland soils at land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. b) Identify any onsite land classified by the FMMP with an agricultural designation that would be directly converted as a result of the proposed development and/or use. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.2-2. LESA Analysis Summary for the Project Site Factor Rating (0-100 points) Factor Weighting (Total = 1.00) Weighted Factor Rating Land Evaluation (LE) 1. Land Capability Classification 96.56 0.25 24.14 2. Storie Index Rating 91.12 0.25 22.78 Site Assessment (SA) 2. Project Size 30 0.15 4.5 3. Water Resource Availability 100 0.15 15 4. Surrounding Agricultural Lands 0 0.15 0 5. Protected Resource Lands 0 0.05 0 Total LESA Score (sum of weighted factor ratings) 66.42 Significance Determination Not considered significant (because SA subscore is less than 20 points). See Appendix D for complete LESA Model Worksheets for each Subarea individually and whole Project site. c) Identify onsite and offsite areas with a County agriculture land use designation that would be directly converted or would indirectly contribute to the conversion of land as a result of the proposed development and/or uses. d) Perform modeling of the Project site with criteria outlined by the LESA Model developed by the California Department of Conservation. 3.2.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to result in impacts to agricultural resources within the Project site. The significance of these impacts are assessed based on LESA Model scores. The Project would convert prime farmland to non- agricultural use, and would change existing zoning for agricultural use on Subareas 2 and 3 to non-agricultural zoning. As such the Project is evaluated for consistency with policies and goals within the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element of the General Plan. As the Project site or vicinity is not under a Williamson Act contract, the proposed Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Based on the LESA analysis, the conversion of existing agricultural lands on the entire Project site to nonagricultural uses is not considered a significant impact. These issues are further discussed below. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-15 Final EIR Table 3.2-3. Summary of Project Impacts Agricultural Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact AG-1. The proposed Project would result in 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. None required Less than Significant Impact AG-2. The proposed Project would result in the conversion of agricultural land uses within the Project site, creating potentially significant impacts with respect to consistency with City Goal Ag1 and related policies in the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element, which seek protection of prime farmland. MM AG-2a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact AG-1 The proposed Project would result in 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 (Less than Significant). The proposed Project would convert the site from undeveloped lands containing prime farmland to developed uses, resulting in a loss of agricultural capabilities. While the majority of the 15.29-acre Project site was found to contain prime soils and prime farmland as designated under the FMMP, the estimated LESA score for the entire site was found to be 66.42 (see Appendix D for complete LESA Model worksheets). This score indicates that agricultural resources within the Project site are not considered significant, because the SA subscore is less than 20 points. The reason for this subscore is that the Project site is not large enough to constitute a high score under LESA, and there is a low percentage of surrounding agricultural lands and protected resource lands in the Project vicinity. The small acreage of the Project site and location within developed land uses limits the agricultural viability of this site, resulting in a low LESA score. Therefore, while the Project would result in a loss of agricultural resources, impacts are considered less than significant. 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact AG-2 The proposed Project would result in the conversion of agricultural land uses within the Project site, creating potentially significant impacts with respect to consistency with City Goal Ag1 and related policies in the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element, which seek protection of prime farmland (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Project development of 14.0 acres of prime agricultural soils would result in conversion of approximately 3.8 percent of the estimated 369 acres of remaining agricultural land within the City. The City’s Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element contains goals and policies aimed at the conservation and protection of prime farmland soils and agricultural uses. Although the Project site’s LESA score indicates that agricultural resources within the site are not considered significant, the proposed Project would convert 14.0 acres of prime agricultural soils and the overlapping 12.85 acres of prime farmland under the FMMP to developed uses, resulting in potential General Plan inconsistencies. Section 16.04.070 of the Municipal Code defines “agricultural land or farmland” as land area specifically designated or zoned as Agriculture. Subareas 2 and 3 are zoned Agriculture and would therefore be subject to mitigation under Policy Ag1-4.2; however, Subarea 1 is not zoned or designated as Agriculture. Under Policy Ag1-4.2 of the City’s General Plan, possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1, and up to 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use, or by payment of in-lieu fees or other such mitigation acceptable to the City Council to permit protection of similar agricultural land. Subareas 2 and 3 contain approximately 11.84 acres of prime farmland soils that would be subject to agricultural mitigation in accordance with Policy Ag1-4.2. For the proposed Project, under City policy, this would require the dedication of prime agricultural soils to a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement, or the payment of in-lieu fees. The Project Applicant for Subarea 2 proposed dedication of an agricultural conservation easement of a 9.79-acre parcel of prime farmland in order to compensate for the loss of approximately 10.1 acres of prime agricultural soils within Subarea 2; the resolution for this agricultural mitigation was adopted by the City Council on July 28, 2015. The proposed mitigation site is located 1.25 miles northeast of the Project 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-17 Final EIR site on Flora Road and is considered acceptable mitigation for the conversion of 9.79 acres of prime agricultural land by the City Council (City of Arroyo Grande 2015). Subarea 1 and Subarea 3 have not set forth specific mitigation proposals. The impact assessment is further broken down by subarea as discussed below. Subarea 1 Impacts: The 2.16-acre Subarea 1 is zoned Traffic Way Mixed-Use and designated Mixed-Use in the City’s General Plan (a nonagricultural use), and the Project would retain this zoning district and land use designation. Given this definition, and in accordance with Section 16.12.170(F), Subarea 1 is not defined as agricultural land or considered an “agricultural land conversion”. As Subarea 1 is designated for nonagricultural uses, and has already been earmarked for development by the City; thus, the General Plan allows for Subarea 1 to be developed with nonagricultural uses that would inevitably result in the loss of prime soils within the site. Since this subarea is not designated for agricultural use by the City, Subarea 1 is not subject to Policy Ag1-4.2 and impacts related to land use consistency would be considered less than significant for Subarea 1. Subarea 2 Impacts: The 11.62-acre Subarea 2 is zoned Agriculture, but would be converted to a Village Residential zoning district, and be reduced to 11.12 acres after the proposed transfer of 0.5 acres to Subarea 3. The proposed Project would convert approximately 10.1 acres of prime agricultural soils to developed uses. In this subarea, the conversion would result in a loss of agricultural lands currently being cultivated. Although the prime soils acreage in Subarea 2 is approximately 10.1 acres, and the proposed parcel for mitigation is 9.79 acres, the City Council has determined this is sufficient mitigation at a 1:1 ratio, with the difference being that some acreage on the site is already lost because it is being used for public roadways, consistent with Policy Ag1-1.2 of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the proposed dedication of 9.79 acres of agricultural land at Flora Road would reduce impacts resulting with consistency with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element, and impacts would be considered less than significant for Subarea 2. Subarea 3 Impacts: The 1.51-acre Subarea 3 is zoned Agriculture, but would be converted to a Village Mixed- Use zoning district, and grow to 2.01 acres after the proposed transfer of 0.5 acres from Subarea 2. This subarea would only contain approximately 0.5 acres of FMMP designated 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 3.2-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR prime farmland, located on the 0.5-acre remainder lot from Subarea 2 (refer to Figure 3.2- 1). The rest of Subarea 3 contains FMMP designated urban and built-up lands. In addition, the proposed Project would convert approximately 1.74 acres of prime agricultural soils from the 2.01-acre Subarea 3 to developed uses, which is a potentially significant impact. Although this subarea is not being utilized for agricultural use and has no history of agricultural activities, it contains approximately 1.74 acres of prime agricultural soils, and requires mitigation under Policy Ag1-4.2. The City Council must determine if the proposed orchard and cultural buildings warrant consideration to count in part as agricultural mitigation. If the mitigation measures below are taken, the impact would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation for Subarea 3. Mitigation Measure for Subarea 3 MM AG-2a The Applicant (Arroyo Grande Valley JWA) shall mitigate for the loss of 1.74 acres of prime farmland soils within Subarea 3 pursuant to General Plan Goal Ag1 and related policies. At the discretion of the City Council, options may include, but not be limited to: 1) Applicant to purchase a parcel of land (size to be determined by City Council) to be put into an agricultural conservation easement, 2) Applicant to pay in-lieu fees to a designated fund dedicated to acquiring and preserving agricultural land; 3) Council may determine that the 9.79-acre parcel intended to mitigate the loss of prime soils for Subarea 2 also mitigates impacts within Subarea 3; or 4) any other approach determined to be acceptable to the City Council to satisfy the intent of General Plan Goal Ag1 and related policies. In making their determination, the City Council may consider the following circumstances: 1) the loss of prime agricultural land for the entire Specific Plan area, including for Subarea 3, is considered less than significant based on the LESA methodology (see Impact AG-1); and 2) Subarea 3 has not historically been in agricultural production. Plan Requirements and Timing. Notices, in-lieu fees and/or agricultural conservation easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to permit approval for applicable development areas within the Specific Plan. Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. The City 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.2-19 Final EIR Council shall make the final decision on the specific requirements for agricultural mitigation prior to permit approval for the Project. Residual Impact Implementation of mitigation measure MM AG-2a would reduce residual impacts to less than significant levels. 3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute incrementally to the loss of agricultural land to development within the City and in southern San Luis Obispo County. Development of 14.0 acres of prime agricultural soils would constitute a loss of approximately 3.8 percent of remaining agricultural land within the City, and a loss of agricultural resources within the County, contributing to cumulative impacts to regional agricultural resources. Although agricultural resources in the Project vicinity are mainly in areas outside City limits, agriculture is a major industry in the County. These impacts, when combined with other recent and proposed developments in the City listed in Table 3.0-1 as well as other developments within southern San Luis Obispo County, cumulatively add to the conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. However, because of the adopted resolution for Subarea 2 to dedicate a 9.79-acre parcel of protected prime farmland and proposed mitigation for Subarea 3, the Project contribution to regional cumulative impacts to agricultural resources is considered less than significant. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-1 Final EIR 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section discusses air quality impacts associated with the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) in the context of site-specific and regional air quality within San Luis Obispo County. Air quality is evaluated according to the concentration of pollutants in ambient air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established criteria to protect public health and welfare for seven criteria pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), 10-micron particulate matter (PM10), 2.5-micron particulate matter (PM2.5) and lead (Pb). Other air pollutants of concern include toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), in particular diesel particulate matter, generated from the operation of diesel engines (e.g., trains, equipment, truck, etc.). 3.3.1 Environmental Setting Existing conditions for air quality in the City of Arroyo Grande are described in detail in the County’s 2001 Clean Air Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference. Based on information available, it is not expected that baseline conditions have changed significantly since the 2001 plan was completed. 3.3.1.1 Regional Climate and Meteorology San Luis Obispo County’s climate can generally be characterized as Mediterranean, with warm dry summers and cooler, relatively damp winters. Inland areas typically experience a wider range of temperatures than on the coast, mainly due to the separation of regions by transformation in terrain, such as the coastal mountain ranges. Maximum temperatures in the summer in coastal areas average about 70 degrees Fahrenheit, while temperatures in the high 90s are typical in the inland valleys. Average minimum winter temperatures range from the low 30s along the coast to the low 20s inland. The County’s meteorology is largely controlled by a persistent high-pressure system over the eastern Pacific Ocean. The Pacific high-pressure system remains generally fixed several hundred miles offshore from May through September. Coastal fog and low clouds often form in the marine layer along the coast, lessening in the warmer interior valleys. Approximately 90 percent of the total annual rainfall in the County occurs between November and April; however, rainfall amounts can vary considerably among different regions in the County. Annual rainfall averages from 16 to 28 inches in the Coastal Plain, while the Upper Salinas River Valley receives approximately 12 to 20 inches of rain 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR annually. The Carrizo Plain is the driest area of the County, receiving an average of less than 12 inches of rain per year. The speed and direction of local winds are influenced by the location and strength of the Pacific high-pressure system, by topographical features and by circulation patterns resulting from temperature differences between land and sea. In spring and summer, when the Pacific high is at its strongest, onshore winds from the northwest generally prevail during the day. In the fall, onshore surface winds decline and the marine layer grows shallow, allowing an occasional weak offshore flow. Pollutants may accumulate more during this time of year, remaining over the ocean for a few days and being carried back onshore. Strong inversions can form at this time, trapping pollutants near the ground surface; this effect is intensified when the Pacific high weakens and moves inland to the east. This may produce a condition known as Santa Ana where air, often pollutant-laden, is transported into the County from the east and southeast. The break-up of this condition generally occurs within seven days and may then result in stagnant conditions and a build- up of pollutants offshore. The sea breeze can also bring these pollutants back onshore, where they combine with local emissions and cause high pollutant concentrations. 3.3.1.2 Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change Global climate change is a change in the average weather of the Earth which can be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature. Scientific consensus has identified that human-related emission of greenhouse gases above natural levels is a significant contributor to global climate change. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) that trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the Earth’s temperature include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, NOx, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and ozone (O3). The primary activities associated with GHG emissions include the electric power industry, transportation, industrial/manufacturing, agricultural, commercial, and residential (U.S. EPA 2015). Specifically, the main sources of increased concentrations of GHGs due to human activity include the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (CO2); livestock and rice paddy farming, land use and wetland depletions, and landfill emissions (methane); refrigeration systems and fire suppression systems use and manufacturing (CFCs); and agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers (NOx). The largest anthropogenic source of emissions comes in the form of CO2, which makes up approximately 82 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. As such, CO2 has the highest data availability and least uncertainty (EPA 2015). In 2012, the State of California produced 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-3 Final EIR approximately 364.20 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Sector sources of these CO2 emissions are as follows: transportation (56.0 percent), industry (19.0 percent), electricity generation (13.2 percent), residential (7.5 percent), and commercial (4.4 percent) (EPA 2012). Global climate change could potentially affect other resource areas, including hydrological resources, economical resources and biological resources. Projected impacts to the region caused by global climate change include: potential decreases in water supply and surface water quality; possible long-term decreases in groundwater yields; changes in coastal water quality; rising sea levels; increased flooding and fire events; declines in aquatic ecosystem health; lowered profitability for water-intensive crops; changes in species and habitat distribution; and impacts to fisheries (California Regional Assessment Group 2002). 3.3.1.3 Regional Air Quality San Luis Obispo County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin, which also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties to the south. Air quality within San Luis Obispo County is contingent on several factors including the type, amount and dispersion rates of pollutants being emitted within the region. Major factors affecting pollutant dispersion, as discussed in the previous paragraphs, are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, temperature, the presence or absence of inversions, and the topographic and geographic features of the region. 3.3.1.4 Regional Emissions San Luis Obispo County has historically been designated as non-attainment of state standards for 1 hour and 8 hour ozone (O3) standards, however conditions have improved as of January 2015. Based on the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the eastern half of San Luis Obispo County is designated as marginal non-attainment for O3 while the western half, which includes the Project site, is in attainment. O3 is a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather is formed by a reaction between NOx and reactive organic gases (ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. O3 can impact public health at higher concentrations by causing respiratory irritation and other affects upon the lungs. It can also affect sensitive plant species by interfering with photosynthesis, and is therefore a threat to California agriculture and native vegetation. Primary emission sources of ROGs in the County are motor vehicles (over 50 percent), organic solvents, the petroleum industry and pesticides. Primary sources of NOx are motor vehicles (over 50 percent), public utility power generation and fuel combustion by various industrial sources (EPA 2015). 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standards Concentration Attainment Status Concentration Attainment Status Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) Non-Attainment -- Non-Attainment Eastern SLO County – Attainment Western SLO County (Project site) 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 50 μg/m3 Non-Attainment 150 μg/m3 Unclassified*/ Attainment Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 -- Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour -- Attainment 35 μg/m3 Unclassified */ Attainment Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Unclassified* 8 Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Attainment 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) Unclassified* Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) Attainment 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) Unclassified* 3 Hour -- -- 24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain areas) Annual Arithmetic Mean -- 0.030 ppm (for certain areas) Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment -- No Attainment Information Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 μg/m3 (for certain areas) Rolling 3-Month Average -- 0.15 μg/m3 Notes: ppm = parts per million μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter mg/m3 = milligram per cubic meter -- = Not applicable *Unclassified (EPA/Federal definitions): Any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant. Attainment (EPA/Federal definitions): Any area that meets the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant. (CA definition): State standard was no exceeded during a three year period. Non-Attainment (EPA/Federal definitions): Any area that does not meet, or contributes to an area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant. (CA definitions): State standard was exceeded at least once during a three year period. Source: (San Luis Obispo APCD 2013). 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-5 Final EIR San Luis Obispo County has historically been a non-attainment area for the state standards for PM10; however, western San Luis Obispo, where the Project site is located, is within attainment of national standards for PM10. Atmospheric particulate matter, or PM10, is comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes and mists. Human activities that generate PM10 include agricultural operations, industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, construction and demolition operations and entrapment of road dust into the atmosphere. Natural sources include wind-blown dust, wildfire smoke and sea spray salt (EPA 2015). 3.3.1.5 Emissions in the Vicinity of the Project Site Activities within the Project site vicinity that contribute to existing emissions in the Air Basin are primarily associated with motor vehicles. The air monitoring station located nearest to the Project site is the Nipomo-Guadalupe Road Station, located at 1300 Guadalupe Road, Nipomo, CA, about 6.3 miles from the Project site. This station measures SO2, PM2.5, and PM10. Hourly data for O3 is not recorded at this station, so ozone data was retrieved from the Nipomo-Regional Park Station, which is located 7.2 miles from the Project site. Table 3.3-2 summarizes the annual air quality emissions data for the local airshed between the years 2012 to 2014, with values exceeding state emissions underlined. This table shows the general air quality trends of the area for pollutants measured near the Project site. Table 3.3-2. Ambient Air Quality Data at Nipomo Air Monitoring Stations Year O3, ppb PM10, μg/m3 PM2.5, μg/m3 O3 Days Above Standard PM10 Days Above Standard PM2.5 Days Above Standard 1-Hour Max 8-Hour Max 24-Hour Max 24-Hour Max State National State National State National 2012 65 60 150.4 36.9 0 0 41.4 0 0 1 2013 76 72 136.5 32.0 1 0 60.4 0 0 0 2014 81 76 153.0 37.5 1 1 43.6 0 0 1 Notes: ppb = parts per billion, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, underlined values have exceeded state emissions standards, italicized values have exceeded national emissions standards Source: CARB 2015. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.3.2 Regulatory Setting 3.3.2.1 Federal Clean Air Act The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed in 1963 and amended in 1990, and was the first comprehensive federal law to regulate air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Among other things, the law authorizes the U.S. EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards. The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) help to ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution. The Clean Air Act also gives the U.S. EPA authority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and its amendments of 1977 and 1990. The EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for O3, CO, NOx, SOx, PM10, and lead (Pb), as shown in Table 3.3-1. The EPA also maintains jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state waters (outer continental shelf), and establishes various emissions standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations, provided they are at least as stringent as federal standards. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established within the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 for criteria pollutants and additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles (see Table 3.3-1). The CCAA requires each Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in California to adopt strategies for achieving the NAAQS and CAAQS by the earliest practicable date. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the control of vehicle emission sources, while the local APCD is responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-7 Final EIR 3.3.2.2 State Clean Air Act The CCAA requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practicable date. The CAAQS includes more stringent standards than the national ambient air quality standards. California Air Resources Board CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets CAAQS, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. California ARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. In April 2005, CARB issued a guidance document on air quality and land use, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which recommends that sensitive land uses not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or other high traffic roadway and that a site-specific health risk assessment be performed as a way to more accurately evaluate the risk. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable to proximity to high-volume roadways was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within 300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70 percent drop-off in particulate pollution levels at 500 feet. Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 AB 1493 requires the CARB to define standards for cars and light trucks manufactured after 2009 and is projected to result in an 18 percent reduction in emissions. Executive Order S-3-05 On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger announced the following GHG emission reduction targets: • By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels. • By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR • By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. “Greenhouse gases” as defined under AB 32 include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of greenhouse gases. AB 32 states the following: Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems. CARB approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007 (ARB 2007). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. The CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (ARB 2008). The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple greenhouse gas emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 greenhouse gas target include: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; • Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-9 Final EIR • Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation. In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. “Capped” strategies are subject to the proposed cap-and-trade program. The Scoping Plan states that the inclusion of these emissions within the cap-and trade program will help ensure that the year 2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies is calculated to achieve a sufficient amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. “Uncapped” strategies that will not be subject to the cap-and-trade emissions caps and requirements are provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional greenhouse gas emission reductions.1 The Scoping Plan was first approved by the Board in 2008 and was recently updated and approved by the Board in May 2014. The ARB has approved new emission inventories for greenhouse gases that result in fewer reductions being required to show consistency with AB 32 targets. A reduction of 21.7 percent would now allow California to achieve 1990 emission levels by 2020. Executive Order S-01-07 Enacted on January 18, 2007, this Order requires that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020, and that a low carbon fuel standard for transportation fuels be established for California. SB 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Update Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of 1 On March 17, 2011, the San Francisco Superior Court issued a final decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air Resources Board (Case No. CPF-09-509562). While the Court upheld the validity of the ARB Scoping Plan for the implementation of AB 32, the Court enjoined ARB from further rulemaking under AB 32 until ARB amends its CEQA environmental review of the Scoping Plan to address the flaws identified by the Court. On May 23, 2011, ARB filed an appeal. On June 24, 2011, the Court of Appeal granted ARB’s petition staying the trail court’s order pending consideration of the appeal. In the interest of informed decision- making, on June 13, 2011, ARB released the expanded alternatives analysis in a draft Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. The ARB Board approved the Scoping Plan and the CEQA document on August 24, 2011. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).” Section 21097 was also added to the Public Resources Code. It provided CEQA protection until January 1, 2010 for transportation projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 or projects funded by the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, in stating that the failure to analyze adequately the effects of greenhouse gases would not violate CEQA. On April 13, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its recommended amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. Following a 55-day public comment period and two public hearings, the Natural Resources Agency proposed revisions to the text of the proposed Guidelines amendments. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law on December 31, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, was added to assist agencies in determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. The new section allows agencies the discretion to determine whether a quantitative or qualitative analysis is best for a particular project. However, little guidance is offered on the crucial next step in this assessment process—how to determine whether the project’s estimated greenhouse gas emissions are significant or cumulatively considerable. Also amended were CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15130, which address mitigation measures and cumulative impacts respectively. Greenhouse gas mitigation 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-11 Final EIR measures are referenced in general terms, but no specific measures are championed. The revision to the cumulative impact discussion requirement (Section 15130) simply directs agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions in an EIR when a project’s incremental contribution of emissions may be cumulatively considerable, however it does not answer the question of when emissions are cumulatively considerable. Section 15183.5 permits programmatic greenhouse gas analysis and later project-specific tiering, as well as the preparation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans. Compliance with such plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable, according to proposed Section 15183.5(b). In addition, the amendments revised Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on Energy Conservation. The sample environmental checklist in Appendix G was amended to include greenhouse gas questions. Senate Bill (SB) 375 Passing the Senate on August 30, 2008, SB 375 was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies. The ARB has adopted emissions reductions targets for per capita light duty vehicles from 2005 levels of 8 percent by 2020 and 8 percent by 2035. SB 375, Section 21159.28 states that CEQA findings determinations for certain projects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss: (1) growth inducing impacts or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network if the project: 1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy that the ARB accepts as achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies). 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3. Incorporates the mitigation measures required by an applicable prior environmental document. Executive Order S-13-08 Executive Order S-13-08 indicates that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” Pursuant to the requirements in the order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the “ . . . first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research. Other Plans and Guidance Documents In October 2008, the CARB, as the lead agency for implementing AB 32, released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan. This plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy and enhance public health while creating new jobs and enhancing the growth in California’s economy (CARB 2008b). In addition to the Scoping Plan, CARB adopted a statewide GHG emissions limit and an emissions inventory, along with requirements to measure, track, and report GHG emissions by the industries determined to be significant sources of GHG emissions (Office of Planning and Research [OPR] 2008). 3.3.2.3 Local County of San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan The County of San Luis Obispo APCD adopted the Clean Air Plan in January 1992; the Plan was updated in 1998, and again in 2001. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. The purpose of the County’s Clean Air Plan is to address the attainment and maintenance of state and federal ambient air quality standards by following a comprehensive set of emission control measures within the Plan. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-13 Final EIR City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan The City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan is a long-range plan aimed to reduce GHG emissions from city operations, developments, and community activities throughout the City in anticipation of the effects of climate change. The primary purposes of the Climate Action Plan are the following: • Summarize the results of the City of Arroyo Grande 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update, which identifies the major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced within Arroyo Grande and forecasts how these emissions may change over time; • Identify the quantities of GHG emissions that Arroyo Grande will need to reduce to meet its target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, consistent with AB 32; • Set forth City government and community-wide GHG reduction measures, including performance standards which, if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified emission reduction target; • Identify proactive strategies that can be implemented to help Arroyo Grande prepare for anticipated climate change impacts, and; • Set forth procedures to implement, monitor, and verify the effectiveness of the Climate Action Plan measures and adapt efforts moving forward as necessary. The Climate Action Plan is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). This allows for the streamlining of the analysis of GHGs on a project level by using a programmatic GHG reduction plan meeting certain criteria. Project-specific analysis of GHG emissions is required if GHG emissions from a project would be cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the Climate Action Plan. 3.3.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance Air Quality Thresholds Significance criteria for evaluating impacts on air quality emissions associated with the Project site are based on Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a significant impact on air quality and GHG emissions if the proposed Project would result in any of the following: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the San Luis Obispo County APCD’s adopted Clean Air Plan; 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation; c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for O3 precursors); d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The following Appendix G criterion is not considered relevant to the Project based upon the Project plans; therefore, it will not be evaluated further in this EIR: e) Creation of objectionable odors. The Project would not involve the development of the types of land uses typically associated with odor issues, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries, or chemical plants. Nor would the Project locate sensitive receptors within proximity of these types of odor-producing sources. Therefore, the following analysis relates to the Project’s potential to result in a significant air quality impact based on the other four significance criteria. Significance Criteria for Construction-Related Emissions Short-term construction emission thresholds for San Luis Obispo County, (Table 3.3-3) as stated in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012), have been set by the APCD as follows: ROG and NOx Emissions • Over 137 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG and NOx requires Standard Mitigation Measures. • Over 2.5 tons per quarter (ton/qtr) of ROG and NOx requires Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Control Technology for construction equipment (BACT). Over 6.3 ton/qtr of ROG and NOx requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of a Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP), and offsite mitigation. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions • Over 7 lbs/day of DPM requires Standard Mitigation Measures. • Over 0.13 ton/qtr of DPM requires Standard Mitigation Measures, and BACT for construction equipment. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-15 Final EIR • Over 0.32 ton/qtr of DPM requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of a CAMP, and offsite mitigation. Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust Emissions • 2.5 ton/qtr of PM10 requires Fugitive PM10 Mitigation Measures and may require the implementation of a CAMP. Table 3.3-3. Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations Pollutant of Concern Threshold Tons/Qtr Tier 1 Tons/Qtr Tier 2 Lbs/Day ROG + NOx (combined) 2.5 6.3 137 Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.13 0.32 7 PM10 - 2.5 - Source: (San Luis Obispo APCD 2012). If construction-related emissions of the proposed Project equal or exceed any of the thresholds stated above, mitigation of construction activities and implementation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) would be required. Significance Criteria for Operational Emissions Long-term operational emission thresholds for San Luis Obispo County, as stated in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012), have been set by the APCD as follows (see Table 3.3-4): Ozone Precursor (ROG + NOx) Emissions • Projects which emit 25 lbs/day or more of ROG and NOx should be submitted to the APCD for review. Onsite mitigation is recommended. If feasible mitigation is incorporated and emissions are still greater than 25 lbs/day, then an EIR should be prepared. • Projects which emit 25 tons/year or more of ROG and NOx required the preparation of an EIR. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions • Projects that emit over 1.25 lbs/day of DPM require implementation of onsite BACT measures. If sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet of the Project site, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) may also be required. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) Dust Emissions • Projects that emit over 25 lbs/day or 25 tons/year of PM10 require implementation of permanent dust control measures to mitigate emissions or provide suitable offsite mitigation approved by the APCD. Table 3.3-4. Thresholds of Significance for Operational Operations Pollutant of Concern Threshold Daily Annual ROG + NOx (combined) 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.25 lbs/day - PM10 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year Source: San Luis Obispo APCD 2012. Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions in March 2010. These guidelines are used in evaluating the cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed Project. According to the adopted CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the proposed Project would be significant if the Project would: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The APCD has adopted recommended GHG significance thresholds. These thresholds are based on AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals, which take into consideration the emission reduction strategies outlined in ARB’s Scoping Plan. The GHG significance thresholds include one qualitative threshold and two quantitative thresholds options for evaluation of operational GHG emissions. The qualitative threshold option is based on a consistency analysis in comparison to a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, or equitably similar adopted policies, ordinances and programs. If a project complies with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that is specifically applicable to the project, then the project would be considered less than significant. In accordance with APCD significance thresholds, the project would be considered to result in a significant impact if it does not comply with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, in this case the one included 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-17 Final EIR in the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan. The City’s Climate Action Plan was developed to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) to mitigate emissions and climate change impacts and will therefore serve as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy for the City. 3.3.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology Criteria Pollutants The air quality analysis follows the guidelines and methodologies recommended in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook for the County of San Luis Obispo (2012). Construction emissions from heavy-duty diesel exhaust were calculated using the APCD’s CEQA handbook and Project-specific equipment details, whenever possible. Emissions factors for calculating emissions from construction equipment were provided by the APCD (San Luis Obispo APCD 2012). Fugitive dust emissions from ground disturbance and import and stockpile activities were calculated using APCD emission factors (San Luis Obispo APCD 2012). Potential impacts were assessed by modeling the estimated daily emissions generated by Project construction and Project operations using the CalEEMod land use emissions model version 2013.2 (see Appendix E for CalEEMod Estimates). Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Consistent with CEQA and the APCD’s recommendation, the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions and resulting global climate change impacts are assessed against the threshold of the City’s adopted Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy in the City Climate Action Plan. 3.3.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses the potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project. Air quality and GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.3-5 below. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.3-5. Summary of Project Impacts Air Quality Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact AQ-1. The proposed Project would result in significant short-term construction-related air quality impacts from dust and air pollutant emissions generated by grading and construction equipment operation. MM AQ-1a MM AQ-1b MM AQ-1c MM AQ-1d Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact AQ-2. The proposed Project would result in significant long-term operation-related air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile emissions. MM AQ-2a MM AQ-2b Significant and Unavoidable Impact AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions during initial construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive receptors to such emissions. MM AQ-3a MM AQ-3b Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact AQ-4. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to global climate change from the emissions of greenhouse gases if the Project is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. MM AQ-2b Less than Significant Impact AQ-5. The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan. MM AQ-2b MM AQ-5a Significant and Unavoidable Impact AQ-1 The proposed Project would result in significant short-term construction-related air quality impacts from dust and air pollutant emissions generated by grading and construction equipment operation (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Project construction would generate short-term air pollutant emissions, particularly construction emissions of ROG and NOx during the architectural coating phase, and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) associated with grading and exhaust from heavy construction vehicles. Construction would generally consist of site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. In addition, during building construction, ROGs and other emissions would be released during the application and drying phase of paints and architectural coatings. The site preparation phase would involve the greatest amount of heavy equipment and the greatest generation of fugitive dust. Emissions were calculated based on an equipment list and composite emission factors. The exact construction timeline for all three subareas is currently unknown; therefore, construction for each subarea was conservatively assumed 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-19 Final EIR to occur simultaneously over an 18-month period. Emission estimates from construction of all three subareas are provided in Table 3.3-6. Table 3.3-6. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) ROG NOx ROG + NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) (lbs/day) 84.84 90.19 175.03 67.53 0.12 5.00 3.67 11,807.5 (tons/qtr) includes Fugitive Dust 1 1.15 2.15 1.01 <0.01 0.1 0.07 138.7 APCD Thresholds (lbs/day) -- -- 137 -- -- -- 7 -- APCD Thresholds (tons/qtr) -- -- 2.5 -- -- 2.5 0.13 -- Significant? -- -- YES NO NO NO NO NO See Appendix E for CalEEMod worksheets. PM10 generation associated with fugitive dust from construction activities were calculated in CalEEMod using the methodology described in the San Luis Obispo APCD 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Detailed construction emissions and calculation assumptions are provided in Appendix E. Projected emissions for the proposed Project were found to be above the established CEQA thresholds for construction emissions of ROG and NOx during the architectural coating phase. Further, APCD requires any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres to apply mitigation measures for PM10 (primarily from fugitive dust); since the proposed Project would disturb a total of 15.29 acres, PM10 mitigation measures would need to be implemented. Standard APCD-recommended conditions at the Project site would minimize construction-related air quality impacts, making impacts less than significant with mitigation (see Table 3.3-7). Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM AQ-1a The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the Project site: • Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible; • Water trucks or sprinkler trucks shall be used during construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would require twice-daily applications. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water (non-potable) shall be used when possible; • All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed; • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one 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 APCD; • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should 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 feet of freeboard in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114; • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible; • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and • The contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust control emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday 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. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-21 Final EIR MM AQ-1b The following standard air quality mitigation measures for construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the Project site: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with CARB- 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; • On- and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas to remind drivers and operators of the five-minute idling limit; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors in not permitted; • Staging and queing areas shall not be loated 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 onsite where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. MM AQ-1c A Construction Activity Management Plan shall be included as part of Project grading and building plans and shall be submitted to the APCD for review and to the City for approval prior to the start of construction. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-22 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR and telephone of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and grading. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following elements: • Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours (as determined by the Public Works Director) to reduce peak hour emissions; • Tabulation of on and off-road construction equipment (age, horse-power and miles and/or hours of operation; • Limit the length of the construction work-day period, if necessary; and, • Phase construction activities, if appropriate. MM AQ-1d To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less, such as Benjamin Moore Natura Paint (Odorless, Zero VOC Paint). Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants are required to show measures on grading and building plans and adhere to measures throughout all grading, hauling, and construction activities. Dust control requirements shall be noted on all grading and building plans. The contractor or builder shall provide City monitoring staff and the APCD with the name and contact information for an assigned onsite dust control monitor(s) who has the responsibility to: a) assure all dust control requirements are complied with including those covering weekends and holidays, b) order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite, c) attend the pre- construction meeting. The dust monitor shall be designated prior to permit issuance. The dust control components apply from the beginning of any grading or construction throughout all development activities until Final Building Inspection Clearance is issued and landscaping is successfully installed. Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are on plans. Grading and building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and building inspectors shall ensure compliance onsite. APCD inspectors shall conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance and respond to nuisance complaints. Residual Impact The projected emissions for construction emissions ROG and NOx after implementation of mitigation (see Table 3.3-7) were found to be below the established APCD thresholds, therefore residual impacts are less than significant. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-23 Final EIR Table 3.3-7. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Mitigated) ROG1 NOx ROG + NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) (lbs/day) 17.26 71.54 88.52 58.67 0.12 3.06 2.00 11,807.5 (tons/qtr) includes Fugitive Dust 1 0.98 1.98 0.95 <0.01 0.07 0.04 138.7 APCD Thresholds (lbs/day) -- -- 137 -- -- -- 7 -- APCD Thresholds (tons/qtr) -- -- 2.5 -- -- 2.5 0.13 -- Significant? -- -- NO NO NO NO NO NO 1 CalEEMod is unable to estimate reductions in ROG emissions from the use of low VOC emissions paint during construction phases. As such, ROG emissions were estimated with pro-rated values using low VOC emissions paint equivalent to 50 g/l. See Appendix E for CalEEMod worksheets. Impact AQ-2 The proposed Project would result in significant long-term operation- related air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile emissions (Significant and Unavoidable). Operational emissions from the proposed Project include those generated by vehicle trips (mobile emissions), the use of natural gas (energy emissions), use of consumer products and appliances, and the use of landscaping maintenance equipment (area source emissions). Maximum daily operational emissions of the proposed Project were estimated using CalEEMod. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-24 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.3-8. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) ROG NOx ROG + NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Overall Operational (Maximum Daily Emission) Area (lbs/day) 8.42 0.07 8.48 5.64 0.0003 0.03 0.03 10.33 Energy (lbs/day) 0.29 2.60 2.89 0.95 0.0158 0.20 0.20 3,184.4 Mobile (lbs/day) 6.78 12.69 19.47 57.58 0.11 7.76 2.18 8,639.5 Total (lbs/day) 15.49 15.36 30.84 65.17 0.12 7.99 2.41 11,834.2 Threshold (lbs/day) 25 25 1.25 Threshold (tons/year) 25 25 Significant? YES NO YES See Appendix E for CalEEMod worksheets. Projected emissions for the proposed Project were found to be above the established APCD thresholds for operational emissions of ROG and NOx, and PM2.5. For unmitigated projects that result in emissions between 30 and 34 lbs/day of combined ROG and NOx or PM10, the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommends that at least 14 standard mitigation measures be implemented as part of the Project to ensure that impacts would be less than significant, based on a list included as Table 3-5 in that document. The list covers a large range of activities and would reduce impacts either through site design, transportation strategies, or increasing the energy efficiency of the Project. In many cases, adherence to the proposed Project design guidelines would implement many of these measures. Even after the inclusion of these recommended measures as appropriate (see Table 3.3-8), impacts are still marginally significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM AQ-2a The Applicants shall include the following: • Water Conservation Strategy: The Applicants shall install fixtures with the EPA WaterSense Label, achieving 20 percent reduction indoor. The Project shall install drip, micro, or fixed spray irrigation on all plants other than turf, also including the EPA 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-25 Final EIR WaterSense Label, achieving 15 percent reduction in outdoor landscaping. • Solid Waste: The Applicants shall institute recycling and composting services to achieve a 15 percent reduction in waste disposal, and use waste efficient landscaping. • Fugitive Dust: The Applicants shall replace ground cover of at least 70 percent of area disturbed in accordance with CARB Rule 403. MM AQ-2b Consistent with standard mitigation measures in Table 3-5 of the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the following mitigation measures would apply to the Project. Mitigation Measures Included from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Measure # Measure Type Mitigation Measure Pollutant Reduced1 Applicant(s) Will Include This Mitigation Applicable to All Subareas 1. Site design, Transportation Improve job / housing balance opportunities within communities. O, P, GHG All Subarea 2 will pay affordable housing in lieu fee. Subarea 3 would be below market rate. 2. Site design Orient buildings toward streets with automobile parking in the rear to promote a pedestrian-friendly environment. O, P, GHG All 3. Site design Provide good access to/from the development for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. O, P, GHG All Improvements to East Cherry Avenue include new bicycle lanes and sidewalks, where none exist now. The collector road will have bicycle lanes and sidewalks. 4. Site design Pave and maintain the roads and parking areas P All 5. Site design Increase density within the urban core and urban reserve lines. O, P, GHG All Assumed 5 dwelling units per acre for Subarea 2 and 15 dwelling units/acre for Subarea 3. Subarea 1 = 36 full time equivalent jobs. 6. Site design; transportation Provide easements or land dedications and construct bikeways and pedestrian walkways. O, P, GHG All 7. Energy efficiency Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®). O, P, GHG All Assume 100% of 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-26 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR appliances would be energy efficient for all subareas. 8. Energy efficiency Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. O, P, GHG All 100% lighting energy reduction for all subareas. Applicable to Subarea 1 9. Site design Driveway design standards (e.g., speed bumps, curved driveway) for self-enforcing of reduced speed limits for unpaved driveways. P Subarea 1 Assumed 15 MPH for unpaved roads. 10. Site design Development is within 1/4 mile of transit centers and transit corridors. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 Closest transit stop is at Traffic Way & Fair Oaks. 11. Site design No residential wood burning appliances. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 12. Site design 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. O, GHG Subarea 1 13. Energy efficiency Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted. O, GHG Subarea 1 14. Energy efficiency Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. O, GHG Subarea 1 Minimum of 120 trees planted. 15. Energy efficiency Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. O, DPM, GHG Subarea 1 16. Energy efficiency Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. O, GHG Subarea 1 17. Energy efficiency Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 18. Energy efficiency Utilize double-paned windows. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 19. Energy efficiency Utilize low energy street lights (i.e. sodium). O, P, GHG Subarea 1 20. Energy efficiency Install door sweeps and weather stripping (if more efficient doors and windows are not available). O, P, GHG Subarea 1 21. Energy efficiency Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-27 Final EIR 22. Energy efficiency Participate in and implement available energy-efficient rebate programs including air conditioning, gas heating, refrigeration, and lighting programs. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 23. Energy efficiency Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 24. Energy efficiency Utilize onsite renewable energy systems (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, low-impact hydro, biomass and bio-gas). O, P, GHG Subarea 1 25. Energy efficiency 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. O, GHG Subarea 1 26. Transportation Project provides a display case or kiosk displaying transportation information in a prominent area accessible to employees or residents. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 27. Transportation Provide electrical charging station for electric vehicles. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 28. Transportation Provide free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-family projects. O, P, GHG Subarea 1 Applicable to Subarea 2 29. Site design Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. O, P, GHG Subarea 2 Includes 20% electric leafblower and chainsaw. 30. Site design; transportation Incorporate traffic calming modifications to Project roads, such as narrower streets, speed platforms, bulb-outs and intersection designs that reduce vehicles speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. O, P, GHG Subarea 2 East Cherry Avenue = 100% improvement. Collector road = 25%. 31. Energy efficiency Orient 75 percent or more of homes and/or buildings to be aligned north / south to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. O, GHG Subarea 2 32. Energy efficiency 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). O, GHG Subarea 2 33. Energy efficiency Utilize low energy traffic signals (i.e. light emitting diode). O, P, GHG Subarea 2 34. Energy efficiency Utilize onsite renewable energy systems (e.g., solar, wind, O, P, GHG Subarea 2 PVs will be an 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-28 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR geothermal, low-impact hydro, biomass and bio-gas). option for home buyers. 35. Transportation Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. O, P, GHG Subarea 2 Applicable to Subarea 3 36. Site design Provide a pedestrian-friendly and interconnected streetscape to make walking more convenient, comfortable and safe (including appropriate signalization and signage). O, P, GHG Subarea 3 37. Site design Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. O, P, GHG Subarea 3 Includes 20% electric leafblower and chainsaw. 38. Energy efficiency Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. O, DPM, GHG Subarea 3 39. Energy efficiency Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. O, GHG Subarea 3 40. Energy efficiency Utilize double-paned windows. O, P, GHG Subarea 3 41. Energy efficiency Install door sweeps and weather stripping (if more efficient doors and windows are not available). O, P, GHG Subarea 3 42. Energy efficiency Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats. O, P, GHG Subarea 3 1 O = Ozone; P = Particulate; DPM = Diesel Particulate Matter; GHG = Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants are required to implement the above standard mitigation measures from the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook including those specified above prior to development plan or permit approval. City staff shall ensure the above measures are incorporated into the development plan and building plans prior to permit issuance. Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are on plans. City staff can work with the Applicants to ensure that these strategies are implemented. APCD inspectors or other City-approved compliance monitors shall conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance and respond to nuisance complaints. Residual Impact Mitigation Measure AQ-2b summarizes the list of appropriate mitigation measures, and indicates which of these are to be incorporated by the Applicants in accordance with the 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-29 Final EIR APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, it is noted that many measures listed in MM AQ-2b do not contain quantifiable air quality emissions reductions. After incorporation of the above mitigation measures, CalEEMod estimates indicate that Project operation would be marginally over the APCD thresholds for ROG + NOx by approximately 0.54 lbs/day, and would be over the PM2.5 threshold by 1.05 lbs/day. However, with incorporation of the above mitigation, long-term operational impacts would be just above the operational emissions for ROG and NOx, and PM2.5, and would therefore be significant and unavoidable (see Table 3.3-9). Table 3.3-9. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Mitigated) ROG NOx ROG + NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Overall Operational (Maximum Daily Emission) Area (lbs/day) 5.87 0.07 5.94 5.65 0.00033 0.03 0.03 10.36 Energy (lbs/day) 0.24 2.17 2.41 0.78 0.00716 0.1 0.1 1,440.2 Mobile (lbs/day) 6.47 10.72 17.19 57.58 0.11 7.76 2.18 8,353.6 Total (lbs/day) 12.58 12.95 25.54 64.02 0.11 7.88 2.3 9,804.1 Threshold (lbs/day) -- -- 25 -- -- 25 1.25 -- Significant? -- -- YES -- -- NO YES -- Impact AQ-3 Release of toxic diesel emissions during initial construction and long- term operation of the proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive receptors to such emissions (Less than Significant with Mitigation). The proposed Project would generate diesel particulate matter from construction and operational activities within 1,000 feet of single family residences adjacent to the northeast and to the south, Vagabond Mobile Home Park adjacent to the southwest containing approximately 25 units, and the St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church located on the adjacent hillside property to the southeast. Diesel particulate matter is listed as a TAC by the CARB with no identified threshold. As required by the EPA, beginning in 2000, and the CARB beginning in 2006, and as specified in the CCR Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 4, Sec. 2423(b)(1), all off- 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-30 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR road diesel engines are required to meet at a minimum the Tier 3 Emission Standards for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines (with proper diesel particulate controls). Tier 3 vehicles operate with significantly less emissions than Tier 1 or Tier 2, as regulated by the EPA. Heavy-haul vehicle fleets used for the Project would comply with state and federal operational standards to reduce the potential generation of NOx or PM10 emissions for off- road diesel vehicles in compliance with CCR. The potential for TACs to have an effect on sensitive receptors would occur if the project is located near an existing significant source of TACs or if it would generate TACs in quantities that may have an adverse effect on sensitive receptors. CARB identifies high- volume freeways and roads, dry cleaners, and large gas stations as potential sources of TACs. The proposed Project would comprise residential, hotel, and restaurant uses, which are considered uses that would not generate substantial amounts of TACs and would not pose a risk to sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. Accordingly, TAC pollution controls would not be required for the proposed Project. Additionally, according to the 2005 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, it is recommended to maintain 500 feet between residences and a major freeway, and more than 50 feet from a typical gas station. U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 550 feet to the southwest of Subarea 2, and a Mobil gas station is located approximately 250 feet to the southwest of Subarea 2. As the proposed Project is outside the recommended buffer zone of potential TAC emitters, the project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs. Given that the project location is outside all relevant buffer zones to potential substantial TAC emissions in the vicinity, and with implementation of the mitigation measures listed below, the proposed Project’s potential impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM AQ-3a The Applicants shall implement the following Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for diesel-fueled construction equipment, where feasible, to minimize the exposure of diesel exhaust to sensitive receptors: • Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines; • Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and, • Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-31 Final EIR MM AQ-3b The Applicants shall ensure that all equipment used in operational activities has the necessary APCD permits when appropriate. To minimize potential delays, prior to the start of development within each subarea, the APCD’s Engineering Division shall be contacted for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Timing. The Applicants are required to adhere to measures throughout all grading, hauling, and construction activities. The Applicants shall coordinate with the APCD prior to permit issuance. Monitoring. City staff shall ensure measures are on plans. APCD inspectors shall conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance and respond to nuisance complaints. Residual Impact Impacts due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors to diesel emissions during construction and operations are potentially significant, but mitigable. As recommended by the APCD, the Applicants would work with the APCD to develop the appropriate level of diesel particulate control technology to apply to construction equipment. Implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measure would reduce residual impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to less than significant. Impact AQ-4 Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to global climate change from the emissions of greenhouse gases if the Project is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (Less than Significant). Construction Emissions Construction activities for Subareas 1, 2, and 3 are assumed to occur over a period of approximately 18 months for the purposes of this analysis. Based on CalEEMod estimates, construction activities for the Project would generate an estimated 778.80 MT of CO2e (as shown in Table 3.3-10). Amortized over a 25-year period (the assumed life of the Project), construction of the proposed Project would generate approximately 31.15 MT of CO2e per year. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-32 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.3-10. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Mitigated) Year Annual Emissions MT CO2e 2017 554.69 2018 224.11 Total 778.80 Amortized over 25 years 31.15 See Appendix E for CalEEMod computer program output and for GHG emission factor assumptions. Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions Operational emissions would be generated from area, energy use, solid waste, water use, and transportation. Energy use emissions assume installation of energy efficient appliances. Emissions from electricity are estimated at 793.52 MT CO2e from Natural Gas. Annual emissions from all generated solid waste would be approximately 67.69 MT CO2e. Water use emissions assume the installation of low flow plumbing fixtures and use of reclaimed water for landscaping. Emissions from water use would be approximately 20.72 MT CO2e. GHG emissions associated with mobile sources were estimated at 966.02 MT CO2e using CalEEMod. Table 3.3-11 shows a summary of these emissions. Table 3.3-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Mitigated) Emission Source Annual Emissions MT CO2e Area 1.54 Energy Use 793.52 Solid Waste 67.69 Water Use 20.72 Mobile Sources 966.02 Total 1,849.48 See Appendix E for CalEEMod computer program output and for GHG emission factor assumptions. Total operational emissions would be approximately 1,849.48 MT CO2e. Combined with construction emissions amortized over a 25-year period (31.15 MT CO2e), total GHG emissions for the proposed Project would be 1,880.63 MT CO2e. The City’s Climate Action Plan is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). The Climate Action Plan forecasts Arroyo Grande’s GHG emissions to be 93,513 MT CO2e by 2020. The City will need to reduce its GHG emissions by 3,914 MT CO2e from the adjusted forecast by 2020 to meet its 15 percent reduction target. The GHG reduction measures in the Climate Action Plan are 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-33 Final EIR estimated to reduce the City’s GHG emissions by 5,371 MT CO2e by 2020. The proposed Project already implements measures such as improving and expanding the City’s bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network and infrastructure, and includes Transportation Demand Management (TDM) incentives. Combined with other measures from the Climate Action Plan feasible for the Project to implement, impacts from greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM AQ-2b above would apply. Residual Impact While this impact is found to be less than significant, implementation of MM AQ-2b above would further ensure that this impact is less than significant. Impact AQ-5 The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan (Significant and Unavoidable). Consistency analysis with local and regional plans, such as the Clean Air Plan, is required under CEQA. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan means that stationary and vehicle emissions associated with the proposed Project are accounted for in the Clean Air Plan’s emissions growth assumptions. According to the County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s guidelines, a project may result in significant air quality impacts if it is inconsistent with the assumptions in the CAP. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan is evaluated based on three criteria: 1) Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those used in the most recent Clean Air Plan for the same area? The Clean Air Plan’s population estimate for the City is 18,988 by 2015, and 305,854 for the County of San Luis Obispo by 2015. According to 2013 estimates by the United States Census Bureau, both the City and County populations are well under the CAP’s projected population estimates. However, the population growth from the Project would exceed the Clean Air Plan projections for the Project site, as Subareas 2 and 3 are currently zoned for agriculture. The proposed Project would include 58 single-family residential lots that would add a population of 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-34 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR approximately 140 persons. This is based on the number of dwelling units (58) multiplied by the average number of persons per household in the City of Arroyo Grande. Additionally, the Project proposed to include 10 senior citizen studio apartments which would add an additional 10 persons to the population resulting in a net total of 150 persons in the Project vicinity. As described in the preceding Impact AQ-2 analysis, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable long-term operation-related air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile emissions; therefore, the proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. 2) Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the rate of population growth for the same area? The population growth from the Project would exceed the Clean Air Plan projections for the Project site, as Subareas 2 and 3 are currently zoned for agriculture. As described in Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Project would create 157 new PM peak-hour vehicle trips. The trip generation rate per day at the Project site is 1,646. The rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled would exceed the Clean Air Plan projections for the Project site; therefore, the proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. 3) Have all applicable land use and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and strategies from the Clean Air Plan been included in the plan or project to the maximum extent feasible? The transportation goal of the Clean Air Plan is to reduce the growth of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to the rate of population growth within San Luis Obispo County. TCMs are controls that help reduce emissions resulting from motor vehicles, by reducing vehicle use and facilitating the use of alternative transportation options. There are a total of nine TCM’s located in the CAP which include the following; T-1B Campus Trip Reduction Program; T-1C Voluntary Commute Options Program; T-2A Local Transit Systems Improvements; T-2B Regional Public Transit Improvements; T-3 Bicycling and Bikeway Enhancements; T-4 Park and Ride Lots; T-5 Motor Vehicle Inspection and Control Programs; T-6 Traffic Flow Improvements and T-8 Teleworking, Teleconferencing and Telelearning. Out of APCD’s nine TCMs included in the CAP, only one of these TCMs, T-3 Bicycling and Bikeway Enhancements, would be included as part of 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.3-35 Final EIR the proposed Project. Implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-2a and b, and MM AQ-5a would reduce inconsistencies with TCMs in the Clean Air Plan. Land use strategies in the Clean Air Plan include planning compact communities, providing for mixed land use, balancing jobs and housing, circulation management, and communication, coordination and monitoring. Each of the five land use strategies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be implemented by the proposed Project. The proposed Project could hinder the County’s ability to maintain attainment of the State ozone standard, because the emissions reductions projected in the Clean Air Plan may not be met. The anticipated population growth and increase in vehicle trips is potentially inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. With the inclusion of mitigation measures below, impacts would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures MM AQ-2b above would apply. MM AQ-5a Consistent with the City’s Goal CT4 to promote transit use, the Applicants shall coordinate with the City Public Works and Community Development Department and work with SLORTA and SCT to establish a sheltered transit stop on East Cherry Avenue near the Project site. Requirements and Timing. The City shall determine the need and exact location for an additional transit stop, and shall coordinate with the Applicants to determine the appropriate actions required, and/or fair share of payment for funding the additional transit stop. Based on the findings, the Applicants shall submit payment of their fair share of funding prior to issuance of use or CUP permits. Monitoring. The City would be responsible for determining appropriate actions and/or the amount of payment of fair shares for the Applicants commensurate with metrics that demonstrate the relative level and intensity of proposed development (e.g., square footage, land use type, trip generation, etc.). 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 3.3-36 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Residual Impact In accordance with the San Luis Obispo APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, all standard mitigation measures and feasible discretionary mitigation measures must be incorporated into the Project. The design of the proposed Project would require relatively substantial changes (e.g., inclusion of mixed-use, housing, etc.) to reduce inconsistency with overall land use planning principles contained in the Clean Air Plan. However, residual impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 3.3.5 Cumulative Impacts By their nature, air quality thresholds are based on regulatory thresholds that already address long-term cumulative growth. The proposed Project would therefore contribute to both local and regional cumulative impacts associated with growth and development. Impacts due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors to diesel emissions during construction and operations are not significant for the Project, but would contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the diesel emissions and maintain emissions at a less than significant level. Long-term operation of the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable localized air quality emissions; therefore, the proposed Project would contribute cumulatively and considerably to localized air quality emissions throughout the City and region. The proposed Project includes a hotel and a restaurant, patrons would consist of both pass- through travelers as well as destination visitors to use the visitor-serving uses proposed. While this would result in additional GHG emissions relative to existing condition, providing the proposed Project remains consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan GHG reduction strategies, the cumulative impact would remain less than significant. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-1 Final EIR The Project site is dominated by historically cultivated agricultural land that offers lower- quality biological habitat, adjacent to a drainage ditch that supports some riparian plant species such as willows. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes biological resources onsite and in the vicinity of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) including local habitats, communities, and sensitive species, and evaluates the potential impacts Project implementation may have on these resources. Grading, vegetation removal, construction activities and development of the Project would have the potential to impact biological resources onsite. In addition to Project construction, the consequences of long-term development including lighting, noise, and site runoff have the potential to impact biological resources. This analysis is based on a review of information contained in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and a Biological Resources Assessment completed for the site by Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) on October 30th, 2015 and contained within Appendix F of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This baseline information has been supplemented by field work completed by Amec Foster Wheeler team members in October 2015. 3.4.1 Environmental Setting The Project site consists of 15.29 acres of undeveloped and largely disturbed lands. The majority of the site (13.78 acres) consists of leveled, lower-value biological habitat due to agricultural uses within Subareas 1 and 2; these parcels contain agricultural land historically farmed for crop production. Subarea 3 is a 1.51-acre vacant parcel on the eastern edge of the site that has been used for storage, and other human uses dating back to 1949, and contains disturbed ruderal vegetated habitat. A drainage ditch, which directs overland flows to prevent flooding of the fields, runs adjacent to the southern edge of the Project site and includes some riparian plant species. A hillside slope with oaks, shrubs, and grasslands occurs just beyond the drainage ditch to the south. None of this existing habitat provides important habitat for wildlife nursery 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Subarea 3 of the Project site is dominated by disturbed annual grasses and provides little habitat for native vegetation. Subareas 1 and 2 of the Project site are historically cultivated agricultural land with limited habitat value. sites1. Residential and urban development borders the site to the north, east, and west, while a mobile home park is situated along the southwestern border of the site. Since the Project site is surrounded on three sides by residential and urban development, the vicinity is mostly developed, and a majority of the Project site has been historically and actively used for agricultural production, wildlife passage through the site would be very restricted and most likely limited to infrequent passage along the southern boundary of the site at the base of the foothill. 3.4.1.1 Biological Communities Three biological communities have been observed within the Project vicinity and are described below. No critical habitats were identified within the Project site (USFWS 2015a). Agricultural Habitat Agricultural habitat is characterized by weedy vegetation that thrives within areas that have been disturbed by cultivation. Vegetation such as wild radish (Raphanus sativus) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) are common on fallow lands, such as those within Subarea 1. Although of relatively low habitat value, these open disturbed areas do provide foraging habitat for native species, particularly raptors. Subarea 2, the 11.62-acre central portion of the Project site, has been under active annual row crop production dating back to at least 1949. Subarea 2 is currently cultivated with a variety of row crops throughout the year and provides only minimal value habitat for native wildlife species, including foraging and migratory birds, small rodents, and insects. 1 A place where young animals grow or are cared for. EAST CHERRY AVENUEEAST CHERRY AVENUEALLEN STREETALLEN STREETSHORT STREETSHORT STREETLOS OLIVOS LANELOS OLIVOS LANELAUNA LANELAUNA LANEFARMHOUSE P L A C E TRAFFIC WAYTRAFFIC WAYST. BARNABAS’ST. BARNABAS’EPISCOPALEPISCOPALCHURCHCHURCHVAGABONDVAGABONDMOBILE HOMEMOBILE HOMEPARK PARKEAST CHERRY AVENUEALLEN STREETSHORT STREETLOS OLIVOS LANELAUNA LANETRAFFIC WAYST. BARNABAS’EPISCOPALCHURCHVAGABONDMOBILE HOMEPARK Subarea 1Subarea 1Subarea 2Subarea 2SubareaSubarea3Subarea 1Subarea 2Subarea3101Aerial Source: Google 2015.LEGENDHabitatsProject SiteSubarea BoundaryAgriculturalDisturbed RuderalOak Woodland/ ScrubDrainage with Riparian Vegetation3.4-1FIGURE0200SCALE IN FEETNBiological Resources within the Project Vicinity3.4-3 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Disturbed and Ruderal Habitat This habitat is characterized by weedy vegetation that thrives within disturbed areas. These areas are typically dominated by non-native plant species and do not contain significant sources of native or naturalized vegetation. The eastern 1.51-acre Subarea 3 currently supports ruderal habitat along with disturbed annual grassland habitat. This subarea is dominated by non-native annual grasses and herbaceous broadleaf species such as brome grasses (Bromus spp.) and shortpod mustard (Helminthotheca iincana). The drainage ditch along the southeastern edge of the site is dominated by poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), nasturtium (Tropoaeolum majus), periwinkle (Vinca major), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Although of relatively low habitat value, these open disturbed areas do provide foraging habitat for native species, particularly foraging birds and raptors. Oak Woodland/Coyote Brush Shrub Alliance Adjacent to the southern edge of the Project site and just beyond the drainage ditch lies a hillside that supports a coast-like oak (Quercus agrifolia) woodland habitat intermixed with coyote brush shrubs (Baccharis pilularis). The adjacent oak woodland can provide habitat for a variety of native species as well as wildlife species that have become adapted to the developed environment such as raccoons, opossums, ground squirrels, gophers, other common rodents, and reptiles. 3.4.1.2 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States The drainage ditch along the southern edge of the Project site directs overflows from the adjacent sloping hillside and fields within the site so that the Project site does not flood. This drainage was excavated on dry land and is regularly maintained under agricultural practices, and historic topographic maps show that there was no historic tributary within or adjacent to the site (see Appendix F) (Erin M. Hanlon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2015). The drainage ditch is listed as a riverine wetland type by the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2015b), and a drainage way in the City General Plan (City of Arroyo The hillside along the southern border of the Project site provides largely undisturbed habitat of oak woodland intermixed with native shrubs. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-5 Final EIR Grande 2007). Based on the evaluation of current and historic conditions, the onsite drainage ditch does not fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (Hanlon 2015). 3.4.1.3 Special Status Species There are 27 special status plant species and 16 special status animal species with recorded occurrences within a five-mile radius of the Project site (Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4- 2). These special status species were identified based on a review of a variety of sources, including the Biological Resource Assessment conducted by Sage Institute, Inc., the CNDDB (CDFW 2015a), and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2015a). Of the plant species, no special status species have been observed on or adjacent to the Project site. All of these plant species are associated with undisturbed lands and specific soil types which are not found on the Project site. As such, the listed special status plant species are determined to have a very low potential to occur within the Project site. Of the special status animal species identified in the five-mile search radius, no species were detected on or adjacent to the Project site. Most special status animal species identified are associated with undisturbed lands, specific soil types, or specific habitat characteristics that are not present within the Project vicinity. With the exception of the Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), special status animal species have a low potential to occur at the Project site due to unsuitable habitat and unsupportive soil types. The Prairie falcon has not been observed on the Project site, but the species is known to inhabit the area and there is a low potential for the species to be present within the surrounding vicinity. The special status species that are known or have the potential to occur in the Project site are summarized in the Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.4-1. Special Status Plants that are known to or Have the Potential to Occur in the Project Site Species Status Notes/Occurrence Beach spectaclepod Dithyrea maritima ST, CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site Black-flowered figwort Scrophularia atrata CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Blochman’s leafy daisy Erigeron blochmaniae CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site California saw-grass Cladium californicum CRPR 2B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Coast woolly-heads Nemacaulis denudate var. denudata CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Coastal goosefoot Chenopodium littoreum CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Crisp monardella Mondardella undulata ssp. crispa CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Dune larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. blochmaniae CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Gambel’s water cress Nasturtium gambelii ST, FE, CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site Hoover’s Bent Grass Agrostis hooveri CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Kellogg’s horkelia Horkelia cuneata var. sericea CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site La Graciosa thistle Cirisium scariosum var. loncholepis CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site Marsh sandwort Arenaria paludicola SE, FE, CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site Mesa horkelia Horkelia cuneata var. puberula CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site Nipomo mesa lupine Lupinus nipomensis SE, FE, CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site Pismo clarkia Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata SR, FE, CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site San Luis mariposa-lily Calochortus obispoensis CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site San Luis Obispo County lupine Lupinus ludovicianus CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site San Luis Obispo monardella undulata ssp. undulata CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-7 Final EIR Table 3.4-1. Special Status Plants that are known to or Have the Potential to Occur in the Project Site (Continued) Species Status Notes/Occurrence San Bernardino aster Symphyotrichum defoliatum CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Sand mesa manzanita Arctostaphylos rudis CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Santa Margarita manzanita Arctostaphylos pilosula CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Slender bush-mallow Malacothamnus gracilis CRPR 1B.1 Little to no potential to occur on-site Southern curly-leaved monardella Monardella sinuata ssp. sinuata CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Straight-awned spineflower Chorizanthe rectispina CRPR 1B.3 Little to no potential to occur on-site Surf thistle Cirsium rhothophilum ST, CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site Notes: CRPR 1B = “Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere” by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2015b). CRPR 2B = “Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere” by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2015b). CRPR 0.1 = “Seriously threated in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)” (CNPS 2015b). CRPR 0.2 = “Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)” (CNPS 2015b). FE = Federally Endangered FSC = Federal Species of Concern SE = California Endangered ST = State Listed Threatened Source: (CDFW 2015c; CDFW 2015d). Table 3.4-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site Species Status Notes/Occurrence American badger Taxidea taxus CDFW:SSC No suitable burrows observed in Project site; unlikely to occur due to unsupportive habitat California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT, CDFW:SSC Unlikely to occur due to unsuitable habitat Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii CDFW:SSC, BLM:S Unlikely to occur: no suitable soil or habitat located on site Globose dune beetle Coelus globosus IUCN:VU Unlikely to occur on-site due to unsuitable habitat Mimic tryonia Tryonia imitator IUCN:DD Unlikely to occur due to unsuitable habitat Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus USFWS:S No recorded roosting on site: unlikely to occur due to unsuitable habitat 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.4-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site (Continued) Species Status Notes/Occurrence Obscure bumble bee Mombus caliginosus IUCN:VU Unlikely to occur due to lack of native flowering plant species Oso Flaco flightless moth Areniscythris brachypteris CNDDB G1 S1 Unlikely to occur due to unsupportive soil types Oso Flaco robber fly Albautus schlingeri CNDDB G1 S1 Unlikely to occur due to unsupportive soil types Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, IUCN:LC, USFWS:BCC Likely to pass over site, but unlikely to occur due to inadequate nesting/forage habitat Sandy beach tiger beetle Cicindela hirticollis gravida None Unlikely to occur due to unsupportive soil types Steelhead – south central California coast DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss FT, AFS:TH, CDFW:SSC Not likely to occur on-site due to unsuitable habitat Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi FE, AFS:EN, CDFW:SSC, IUCN:VU Unlikely to occur due to unsuitable habitat Western pond turtle Emys marmorata BLM:S, CDFW:SSC, IUCN:VU, USFS:S Unlikely to occur due to unsuitable habitat Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT, CDFW:SSC, NABCI:RWL, USFWS:BCC Unlikely to occur: restricted to coastal strand and dune systems White sand bear scarab beetle Lichnanthe ursina CNDDB G1 S1 Unlikely to occur due to unsupportive soil types Notes: CNDDB G1 S1 = California Natural Diversity Database, Global rank: critically imperiled, extremely rare; State rank: critically imperiled: extremely rare. AFS:EN = American Fisheries Society: Endangered BLM:S = Bureau of Land Management: Sensitive CDF:S = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: Sensitive CDFW:SSC = California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Species of Special Concern USFWS:BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Bird of Conservation Concern IUCN:VU = International Union for Conservation of Nature: Vulnerable NABCI:RWL = North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Red Watch List FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act SE = California Endangered WL = CDFW Watch list Source: (CDFW 2015b; CDFW 2015e; CDFW 2015a; CNDDB 2016) 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-9 Final EIR 3.4.2 Regulatory Setting 3.4.2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), it is unlawful to “take” any species listed as threatened or endangered. Take is defined as actions intended to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” An activity is defined as a take even if it is unintentional or accidental. Take provisions under the federal ESA apply only to listed fish and wildlife species under the jurisdiction of USFWS and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Consultation with USFWS or NMFS is required if a project “may affect” or result in take of a listed species. When a species is listed, USFWS and/or NMFS, in most cases, must officially designate specific areas as critical habitat for the species. Consultation with USFWS and/or NMFS is required for projects that include a federal action or federal funding if the project would modify designated critical habitat. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 is the cornerstone legislation addressing fisheries management in U.S. jurisdictional waters. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nest, and requires harvests to be limited to levels that prevent overuse. Further, the MBTA prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, selling, purchase, barter, or offering for sale, purchase, or barter, of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts, and nests, except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and its provisions ensure that federally permitted activities comply with the federal Clean Water Act and state water quality laws. Section 401 is implemented through a review process that is conducted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and is triggered by the Section 404 permitting process. The RWQCB certifies via the 401 process that a proposed project complies with 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR applicable effluent limitations, water quality standards, and other conditions of California law. Evaluating the effects of the proposed project for both water quality and quantity (runoff) falls under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. 3.4.2.2 State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act provides a comprehensive water-quality management system for the protection of California waters and regulates the discharge of oil into navigable waters. Water Quality Control Plan The proposed Project falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB, which has established a Water Quality Control Plan for the coastal watersheds of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Monterey counties. California Endangered Species Act Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), it is unlawful to “take” any species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Take under CESA means to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA take provisions apply to fish, wildlife, and plant species. Take may result whenever activities occur in areas that support a listed species. Consultation with CDFW is required if a project would result in take of a listed species. Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code The CDFW is responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing California's fish, wildlife, and native plant resources. To meet this responsibility, the law requires any person, state or local government agency, or public utility proposing a project that may impact a river, stream, or lake to notify the CDFW before beginning the project. If the CDFW determines that the project may adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement is required. A Streambed Alteration Agreement lists the CDFW conditions of approval relative to the proposed project, and serves as an agreement between an applicant and the CDFW for a term of not more than five years for the performance of activities subject to this section. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-11 Final EIR Other Sections of the Fish and Game Code Fully Protected and Protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or the CDFW. Information on these species can be found within section 3511 (birds), section 4700 (mammals), section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and section 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code. Relative to the proposed project, provisions of this code affect nesting and migratory birds. 3.4.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan contains policies requiring protection of special status plant and animal species. General Plan, Fringe and Urban Land Use Element Goal LU12 – Components of “rural setting” and “small town character” shall be preserved. Policy LU12-1 – Recognize agriculture, natural hillsides, clean air quality and linear open spaces along Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho creeks as valuable components of the City’s rural setting and essential elements worthy of conservation and preservation. General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Goal C/OS2 – Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystems. Policy C/OS2-1.6 – Plan, design, and develop sites to: Protect scenic, resources, water quality, and natural Creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat corridor can be established. •Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor; •Maintain predevelopment site hydrology by using site design techniques that store, infiltrate, evaporate, or detain runoff according to the City Drainage Master Plan or any applicable Site Design Guidelines for Storm Water Quality and Water Conservation as amended; •Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss; •Limit impervious area by design and the use of best management practices; 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR •Limit land disturbance activities, such as clearing and grading and cut and fill, to reduce erosion, sediment loss, and soil compaction; and •Preserve natural drainage features and vegetation to the extent possible. Policy C/OS2-4.2 – Public or private developments that require discretionary permit or propose a land division, shall avoid disturbance of significant wildlife corridors, and/or wetlands identified by the City or County environmental studies. City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 10.12 – Obstruction of Visibility of Driveways or Intersections – The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 10.12 is specifically designed to help protect motorists and pedestrians from a line of sight obstruction due to a hedge, tree, fence or other visibility barrier. The ordinance states, “Any obstruction more than two feet in height above the level of the sidewalk or ground elevation is defined as a public nuisance.” This public nuisance violates the City’s “Vision Triangle” code. Trees are the exception; as long as a tree has no foliage below seven and one half (7 ½) feet, the tree is not considered to be an impediment to the “vision triangle”. Any foliage below the seven and one-half (7 ½) foot level must be approved by the City. Section 12.16 – Community Tree Program – The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 12.16 is designed to preserve, enhance and revitalize the City’s urban forest. The Community Tree Program sets forth guidelines and policies with regards to •Street tree requirements for new development; •Landmark Trees; •Responsibility for tree-damaged sidewalks and public improvements; •Privately owned trees affecting the public right-of-way; •Tree removal in residential, mixed-use and commercial zones; •Public utility company requirements; •Installation, maintenance and removal of trees relating to property development. Regulated trees include: street trees within the public right-of-way fronting the property, landmark trees and any Oak trees with a trunk width over twelve (12) inches in diameter when measured four and one half (4.5) feet from the base. Removing them is prohibited without first obtaining a permit. The permit is available when the removal is deemed appropriate. Any removal of a regulated tree without a permit is considered to be a misdemeanor violation with a minimum $150.00 tree replacement fee. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-13 Final EIR 3.4.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.4.3.1 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, impacts to terrestrial biological resources would be considered significant if the proposed Project results in: a)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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; b)A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; c)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; or, 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. 3.4.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology This section provides a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on the biological resources of the Project site and surrounding area, including both direct loss of habitat and indirect impacts to remaining habitats. This would include the Project’s conversion of 15.29 acres of active annually cultivated land and disturbed/ruderal habitats into a range of urban uses including a hotel and restaurant (Subarea 1 – 2.16 acres); single-family residences (Subarea 2 – 11.62 acres); and an area of assembly, limited 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR commercial uses, attached residential housing, and gardens and orchards (Subarea 3 – 1.51 acres), as well as the Project’s potential to affect the oak woodland/coyote brush shrub alliance habitat adjacent to the southern edge of the Project site. This analysis also accounts for the fact that the drainage ditch that runs along the southern edge of the Project site is listed as a riverine wetland type by the National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2015b), and a drainage way in the City General Plan (City of Arroyo Grande 2007), but does not fall under the jurisdiction of USACE or CDFW. The data and field surveys compiled from the CNDDB, USFWS, and a Biological Resources Assessment by SII (contained within Appendix F) provided the information necessary to evaluate and assess potentially significant impacts on biological resources from implementation of the Project. The Biological Resources Assessment conducted by SII was peer reviewed by Amec Foster Wheeler and found to be adequate for the purposes of EIR analysis. Policies and regulations cited in this impacts analysis include the Fish and Game Code of California Sections 3503 and 3503.1, the MBTA, Arroyo Grande General Plan, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sections 10.12 and 12.16. 3.4.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The implementation of the proposed Project would result in minimal impacts to biological resources of the Project site, due to the fact that most of the Project site has been cultivated for over 60 years, and the eastern 1.5 acres of disturbed/ruderal habitat does not represent a high habitat value for wildlife. The potential impacts of the Project and recommended mitigations are further discussed below. Table 3.4-3. Summary of Project Impacts for all Subareas Biological Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact BIO-1. Project construction and major alteration of the Project site would result in a loss of low-value agricultural and disturbed ruderal habitats and potential indirect impacts to the adjacent oak woodland habitat. MM BIO-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact BIO-2. Project construction and operation has the potential to create significant impacts to the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife on the Project site. MM BIO-2a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact BIO-3. The Project has the potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. None required Less than Significant 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-15 Final EIR Impact BIO-1 Project construction and major alteration of the Project site would result in a loss of low-value agricultural and disturbed ruderal habitats and potential indirect impacts to the adjacent oak woodland habitat (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Project construction activities would alter 15.29 acres of agricultural land and disturbed ruderal habitat. There are no critical habitats identified within the Project site. The site is dominated by 13.78 acres of historically cultivated land that offers low-quality agricultural habitat within Subareas 1 and 2. Although the open disturbed areas within Subarea 1 are of low habitat value, they do provide foraging habitat for some native species, particularly raptors. Subarea 2 is currently cultivated with a variety of row crops and provides minimal habitat value for some native wildlife species, including foraging and migratory birds, small rodents, and insects. Subarea 3 is dominated by disturbed and ruderal habitat that provides low habitat value, but does provide foraging habitat for some native species, such as foraging birds and raptors. The Project site is adjacent to a drainage ditch vegetated by various riparian plant species. An approximately 2- to 5-foot high concrete retaining wall/drainage facility would be constructed along the southern boundary of Subarea 2 as part of the Project, which has the potential to have an impact on the riparian vegetation. However, the ditch is regularly maintained by the farming operation on Subarea 2 to keep it clear of vegetation. Additionally, the drainage ditch is not considered a federally protected wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as verified by the USACE regulatory staff following a field meeting on September 17, 2015 (Erin M. Hanlon 2015). Based on the Biological Resources Assessment, the email from USACE staff, and site visits, Amec Foster Wheeler has determined that these riparian plant species are not considered important riparian habitat. Just beyond the drainage ditch the hillside slope is vegetated by oaks, shrubs, and grasslands to the south. This adjacent oak woodland can provide some habitat for a variety of native species as well as wildlife species that have become adapted to the developed environment. The Project would not have any impacts on this habitat directly, but has the potential to have a significant impact indirectly from construction activities and associated noise, equipment, and human presence. Mitigation measure MM BIO-1a, which requires a construction management plan to limit construction-related staging and maintenance areas from biological sensitive resources, shall be implemented to reduce impacts to a less than a significant level. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Although the Project would result in the loss of agricultural and disturbed ruderal habitat, no candidate, sensitive, or special status plant species have been observed within the Project site. The potential for these plant species to occur is very low, as they are associated with undisturbed lands and specific soil types which do not exist on the Project site. No candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife species have been observed within the Project site. The potential for these wildlife species to occur is very low, due to unsuitable habitat and unsupportive soil types, with the possible exception of the Prairie falcon passing over the site. This is unlikely to occur, however, due to the inadequate nesting/foraging habitat for this species. Since there are no critical habitat areas, special status species identified have a very low potential of occurring on the Project site, and the existing habitats are of minimal or relatively low value, impacts associated with the loss of this agricultural and ruderal habitat are considered less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1a Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100 feet away from areas associated with the existing drainage and adjacent oak woodland habitat, and all construction vehicle maintenance shall be performed in a designated vehicle storage and maintenance area. Plan Requirements and Timing. A construction management plan that identifies construction-related staging and maintenance areas shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to the initiation of construction. The Plan shall be designed to address erosion and sediment control during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with Policy C/OS2-1.6 of the General Plan. An Environmental Monitor shall be made available to monitor environmental compliance of the construction activities. The City shall also inspect the Project site during construction to monitor runoff. Residual Impact When combined with standard regulatory measures, the inclusion of the above measure would reduce Project construction and alteration impacts to less than significant. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-17 Final EIR Impact BIO-2 Project construction and operation has the potential to create significant impacts to the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife on the Project site (Less than Significant with Mitigation). The agricultural lands of Subareas 1 and 2 provide minimal habitat for migratory wildlife species, as the Project site is located in a mostly developed area and is not known to be used as a migratory wildlife corridor. Locally common birds may pass through the crops and vegetation to forage on insects and cropland vegetation. The disturbed/ruderal habitat of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants of Subarea 3 are suitable foraging and nesting habitat for migratory birds, and food and cover for other migratory wildlife. The Project site and the oak woodland and grasslands adjacent to the Project site to the south are suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to a developed environment such as birds, raccoons, opossums, ground squirrels, gophers, other common rodents, and reptiles. The MBTA prohibits the taking of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The oak trees, other non-native trees, and ruderal vegetation on the Project site provide suitable nesting habitat for birds. Sections 3505 and 3503.1 of the Fish and Game Code of California prohibit the destruction of active bird nests. Project construction and potential tree removal in the disturbed/ruderal habitat could impact ground and/or tree nesting bird species if construction activities are conducted during the typical nesting season from February 1 to August 31. Project construction and alteration impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation to nesting birds. The manmade drainage ditch is not considered suitable habitat for fish or native wildlife nursery habitat as it generally does not contain flows other than occasional flood events and runoff from the adjacent agricultural fields, and does not currently support fish or wildlife (SII 2015). Since the Project site provides low-quality habitat for native resident or migratory wildlife, and no habitat for native wildlife nursery sites, Project construction and operation impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-2a Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for Project construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31, outside of the primary nesting season for birds, unless City-approved preconstruction nesting bird surveys are conducted that determine if any active nests 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 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, then these nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non- disturbance buffer zone around active nest, which shall be in place until the adults and young of the year no longer rely on the nest site for survival. The study, surveys, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared by a City approved qualified biologist. Compliance shall be verified by the Project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. Plan Requirements and Timing. A migratory and nesting bird management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to the initiation of construction. Construction shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 unless no active nests are found. Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with Sections 3505 and 3503.1 of the Fish and Game Code of California. An Environmental Monitor and qualified biologist shall be made available to monitor environmental compliance of the construction activities, as needed. The City shall also inspect the Project site during construction to verify protection of any active bird nests identified from the nesting bird surveys. Residual Impact With implementation of the above mitigation measure, impacts to migratory and nesting birds, and foraging raptors would be less than significant. Impact BIO-3 The Project has the potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (Less than Significant). Implementation of the Project may result in the removal of live oak trees within Subarea 3.The Project is required to comply with the City’s two primary tree ordinances, the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sections 10.12 and 12.16 in regards to tree removal and construction around regulated trees. Live Oak trees are located on the eastern 1.51 acres of the Project site, in Subarea 3. Removing any Oak trees with a trunk width over 12 inches in diameter when measured 4.5 feet from the base is prohibited without first obtaining a permit. The City would need to approve any removal of and construction around any regulated trees on Subarea 3. Because of these required City ordinances, City 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.4-19 Final EIR staff would ensure that the Project is consistent with these ordinances during planning review; therefore impacts are considered less than significant. The Project site is not part of a Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur with respect to such plans. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 3.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Construction of the proposed Project would continue the pattern of development in the southern portion of the City as envisioned in the City’s General Plan. The proposed development would result in loss of undeveloped land and habitats, and increase the amount of impervious surfaces, night light, noise, and traffic that come with such development. These changes, both on the site and within cumulative development throughout the City, would both directly and indirectly affect habitats and wildlife species in general. The Project itself would result in the development of 15.29 acres of low-quality agricultural, ruderal, and oak woodland habitat. On a regional scale, removal of this habitat would slightly reduce the amount of foraging and nesting habitat in the vicinity for non-sensitive birds and wildlife. These impacts, when combined with other recent and proposed developments in the City listed in Table 3.0-1, all add to the loss of open space and habitats in the City. However, because of the relatively low value of habitats currently occurring on the Project site, the Project contribution to regional cumulative impacts to biological resources is considered less than significant. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-1 Final EIR 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazards may include exposure to both natural and man-made hazards. These could include hazards associated with aircraft operations at nearby airports or natural hazards such as wildfires. A range of other types of hazards are addressed in other sections of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as follows: air pollution hazards, such as toxic air contaminants (TACs) and particulate matter (PM), are addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality; water pollution hazards, such as groundwater contamination and surface runoff, are addressed in Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality; transportation hazards including both construction (short-term and operational) are addressed in Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic; and hazardous solid waste disposal is addressed in Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity which may pose a threat to human health or the environment. The term “hazardous materials” is used in this section to describe chemical materials, such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated chemical materials. Additionally, the term “release” as used in this section includes known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other methods of release of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface water. If a historical release exists, then there is a risk associated with disturbing the historical release area. The potential for future releases of hazardous materials to occur during construction or operation of the proposed Project facilities is also described in the analysis. The information presented below outlines the existing conditions, regulatory setting, significance criteria, potential for upset, levels of public risk associated with those potential upsets, and their significance. The existing conditions presented in this section represent the baseline conditions prior to implementation of the proposed Project and include the existing configuration of the Project site, existing operations, and present environment. Risks associated with a potential release of hazardous materials are then evaluated in relation to the baseline conditions. Once the baseline risks are assessed, significance criteria are used to evaluate if there is an increased level of risk associated with the proposed Project, and to evaluate if the proposed change could introduce a significant increase in potential impacts. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.5.1 Environmental Setting The baseline conditions for the Project site are based on information gathered from several sources, including Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) prepared for the Project site and contained within Appendix I of this EIR, information provided by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Safety Element, and Project site information on file with the City of Arroyo Grande. 3.5.1.1 Potential for Hazardous Materials within the Project Vicinity The Project site is divided into three separate subareas, each under separate ownership. Active agricultural operations in Subarea 2 may include the intermittent application of chemicals that can be toxic or hazardous such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Subarea 1 of the Project site has historically experienced agricultural operations and cultivation of the site has likely included the application of similar chemicals. Farmers use these compounds to control weeds, fungi, rodents, and insects that are harmful to their crops. Production and storage of these chemicals can pose potential hazards where leaks can contaminate air, water, or generate fire. The use of pesticides and their storage within the region is monitored by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Due to the small size of the agricultural operations at the site, the application of such chemicals are limited and are anticipated to be negligible. Adjacent to the southwest edge of the site bordering Subarea 1 and Subarea 2, located at 525 Traffic Way, is a Mobil Gas Station. Many gasoline and diesel pumping stations store gasoline supplies in specialized Underground Storage Tanks (USTs). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines these USTs as a tank and any underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10 percent of its total volume underground and is used for the storage of petroleum or other hazardous substances (EPA 2015). These USTs are designed to minimize land and water contamination and is required that all facilities that have a UST must operate under an UST Facility Permit. USTs present a potential source for soil and groundwater contamination. A search of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA records indicate that there is one active permitted UST facility associated with the Mobil Gas Station, and one open cleanup program site within a 2.0-mile radius of the Project site, as summarized in Table 3.5-1 and Table 3.5-2 (DSTC 2015; EPA 2015). The one active 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-3 Final EIR Table 3.5-1. Summary of Hazardous Materials Database Searches Database Search Parameters Results GeoTracker 2.0 mile radius 1 Open Cleanup Program Site Superfund sites 2.0 mile radius None recorded Hazardous Waste Report sites 2.0 radius None recorded TRI facilities Arroyo Grande None recorded Toxic Substances Control Act sites 2.0 mile radius None recorded LUST 2.0 mile radius 14 completed-case closed status sites UST 2.0 mile radius 13 Permitted Active Underground Storage Tanks Source: (DSTC 2015; EPA 2015). Table 3.5-2. Summary of Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites and USTs within the Project Vicinity Description Distance from the Project Site Status Petro Grande UST 200 Feet Permitted UST Bewley’s Chevron 0.4 Miles Permitted UST Village Creek Plaza Cleanup Site 0.5 Miles Open Verification Monitoring Arroyo Grande Shell Station UST 0.55 Miles Permitted UST Lucia Mar Unified School District UST 0.65 Miles Permitted UST Arco AM/PM UST 0.67 Miles Permitted UST Beacon Station UST 0.81 Miles Permitted UST Tosco Corp Site UST 0.94 Miles Permitted UST Arroyo Grande Community Hospital UST 0.98 Miles Permitted UST Sloco Fuel Site #1 UST 1.12 Miles Permitted UST Sebastian Oil Distributer UST 1.40 Miles Permitted UST Katch Go Petroleum UST 1.68 Miles Permitted UST Gill’s Food Market UST 1.84 Miles Permitted UST City of Arroyo Grande UST 1.92 Miles Permitted UST Notes: Representative of sites within a 2.0-mile radius from the Project site. Source: (DSTC 2015). UST facility is less than 200 feet from the site; however, a search for known hazardous waste contamination sites in the area does not indicate any contamination of the Project site by this facility (DSTC 2015). Fourteen (14) inactive Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Clean-Up sites were identified within 2.0 miles of the Project site where 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR releases of diesel, gasoline, or motor oil previously occurred. Cleanup actions for these sites took place between 1986 and 2013; the closest LUST site to the Project is located at the Mobil Gas Station site where remedial actions were completed for a gasoline release in 2009. Due to the distance and completed status of the LUST sites, potential for contaminants to migrate to the Project site is low. As there are no superfund sites, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) facilities or active LUST sites recorded in the immediate Project vicinity, the potential for hazardous materials to occur in the immediate vicinity is limited. The search identified one cleanup site that is currently under active monitoring and is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest and of the Project site. This cleanup site is the result of the release of gasoline, trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride from a UST. The leak occurred and was stopped in 1965 but the site was opened for cleanup and monitoring after the discovery of soil contamination during the removal of the UST in 1994. The site has undergone regular monitoring procedures to ensure the prevention of contamination of the groundwater aquifer. The cleanup site is located downgradient of the Project site and there is little to no chance for contamination of onsite soils from this contamination event. 3.5.1.2 Risk of Wildfire within the Project Vicinity Much of the Arroyo Grande Valley is covered in combustible vegetation where wildfires are a part of the regional ecosystem and naturally maintain viable environments (City of Arroyo Grande 2001). The Project site lies within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) of the City of Arroyo Grande (CalFire 2007). The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) classifies the Project as within a High Fire Hazard Zone in the southern and eastern portions of the site, a Medium Fire Hazard Zone in the west-central portion of the site, and Urban Zoned/Non- Wildland/Non-Urban Hazard Zone in the western portion of the site (Figure 3.5-1) (CalFire 2009). The adjacent hillside along the southern border of the site is a natural coast live oak woodland which could provide natural fuels for any structural or wildland fires in the area. The eastern region of Arroyo Grande is a rural area used primarily for agricultural production and contains larger areas of native landscapes, and is listed as an area at risk for fire (CalFire 2005). The proposed Project would be within a 3-minute response time from the Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA) Station 1. Existing FCFA facilities and response are described in greater detail in Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-5 Final EIR Figure 3.5-1. Fire Threat in the Project Vicinity 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting 3.5.2.1 Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; 1980) CERCLA addresses procedures to identify and clean-up sites contaminated by unauthorized releases of hazardous materials. Commonly known as Superfund, CERCLA was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Superfund sets priorities for cleanup in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan). The National Contingency Plan includes lists of abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, which the EPA updates annually. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Under CERCLA, owners and operators of real estate where there is hazardous substance contamination may be held strictly liable for the costs of cleaning up contamination found on their property. No evidence linking the owner/operator with the placement of the hazardous substances on the property is required. Clean Water Act (1977) The Clean Water Act governs the control of water pollution in the United States. This Act implements the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which requires that permits be obtained for point discharges of wastewater. This Act also requires that stormwater discharges be permitted, monitored, and controlled for various entities. The Central Coast RWQCB oversees on-site treatment of “California Designated, Non- Hazardous Waste.” The Central Coast RWQCB enforces water quality thresholds and standards set forth in the Basin Plan through the project permitting process. The RWQCB requires project applicants to obtain a General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit under the NPDES program. This program is enforced in California by the RWQCBs. The permit requires that the applicant develop and adhere to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion, siltation, turbidity, and pollution of study area media by other potential contaminants typically associated with construction activities. The SWPPP also includes BMPs necessary to control or prevent the release of non-stormwater discharges in stormwater runoff. Additional information on stormwater management is described in Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality. Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (1986) This Act is the federal legislation that governs the control and abatement of asbestos hazards present in school buildings. The purpose of this Act is to also require EPA to conduct a study to determine the extent of danger to human health posed by asbestos in public and commercial buildings and the means to respond to any such danger. National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61 Subpart M If utility pipelines would be removed or relocated, or buildings would be removed or renovated, the project may be subject to the requirements stipulated in NESHAP. These requirements include but are not limited to: 1) Notification requirements to the San Luis 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-7 Final EIR Obispo County APCD; 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector; and 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of ACMs. Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Process Safety Management Standard (29 CFR 1910.119) This standard includes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. Some of the requirements of this standard include: all information pertaining to the hazardous chemicals shall be available to the employees; employees shall be given training on the operation of equipment with hazardous materials; and, the employer is required to perform a process hazard analysis. U.S. Department of Transportation The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation between states. Within California, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Highway Patrol enforce federal law. Together, these agencies determine driver training requirements, load labeling procedures, and specifications for container types to be used. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) FIFRA provides federal regulation of pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides distributed and used in the U.S. must be registered (licensed) by the EPA. Registration requires that pesticides are properly labeled and used in accordance with specifications. The registrant must also prove that the substance will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including human health risks inconsistent with the standard under Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Use of each registered pesticide must be consistent with use directions contained on the label or labeling. Individuals applying pesticides must do so in a manner not only consistent with federal laws, but also consistent with state laws and regulations which may differ from state to state. In general, states have primary authority for compliance monitoring and enforcement against the use of pesticides in violation of the labeling requirements. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.5.2.2 State Site-Specific Health and Safety (California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Cal/OSHA] Title 8 and OSHA 29 CFR 1910) The proposed Project is subject to the requirements of state and federal occupational safety and health requirements during project operations. Under these requirements, a Site- specific Health and Safety Plan must be developed prior to initiation of a proposed Project. Workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials, including lead based paint and asbestos-containing materials, in their workplace must be trained so that they are aware of the hazards and provided necessary protection from the hazardous materials. Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (California Health and Safety Code [HSC], Chapter 6.95) This law is designed to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous materials releases. This state law requires businesses to develop a Release Response Plan for hazardous materials emergencies if they handle more than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet of hazardous materials. In addition, the business must prepare a Hazardous Materials Inventory of all hazardous materials stored or handled at the facility over the above thresholds. Also, all hazardous materials must be stored in a safe manner. Both the Release Response Plan and the Hazardous Materials Inventory must be supplied to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the program. In this case, the CUPA is the San Luis Obispo County Health Agency. California HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.8, Section 25319.5 - Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) The California HSC requires that a PEA provide sufficient information to determine whether or not current or past waste management practices have resulted in the release or a threatened release of hazardous substances that pose a threat to public health or the environment. The PEA should also provide sufficient information to conclude whether or not significant response actions are necessary at the site as well as include an analysis of the scope and identity of the affected community. Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) (1986) In California, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986: (1) no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto land 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-9 Final EIR where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water, and (2) no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual. The "no significant risk" level for carcinogens that is enforced by this Act is one in one hundred thousand (1 x 10-5). Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) The Porter-Cologne Act establishes a regulatory program to protect water quality and to protect beneficial uses of state waters. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes the state board and regional boards as the principal state agencies responsible for control of water quality. Each of the nine RWQCBs in California is required to develop guidance to assist in ensuring that the intent of the Porter-Cologne Act is met. Cleanup criteria are based on the type of contaminant (e.g., gasoline, diesel, or oil) released and the depth to groundwater. California Government Code Section 4216 The state law requires proper notification to the state’s DigAlert office of any construction- related excavation activities prior to commencement of such development and adherence to standards and practices (e.g., flagging of undergrounding areas) to ensure that excavation does not result in conflicts with underground pipelines and other infrastructure. HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 – Hazardous Waste Management Waste that is toxic, corrosive, flammable, or reactive when tested in accordance with the CCR, Title 22, Article 11, Section 66693, must be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with these regulations, which are more stringent than federal regulations. HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.7, and CCR, Title 23 – UST Management USTs used for storing petroleum products must be managed in accordance with California law, which provides requirements for installation, materials used, secondary containment, overspill protection, and monitoring. California Fire Code To minimize risks to public health and the environment, a Fire Prevention Inspector shall review a list of hazardous materials stored aboveground on a property to assess potential 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR individual and/or cumulative impacts to the property and surrounding areas. The inspector would ensure that hazardous materials stored on-site are in compliance with Chapter 6.95 of the California HSC. The fire code provides uniform fire prevention, hazardous material, and building construction regulations. 3.5.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan The City’s General Plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. The safety element focuses on achieving acceptable levels of risk through decisions on land use and the form of development, with consideration for the closely related factor of transportation. The safety plan includes policies that describe an approach to achieving the goals of the General Plan. General Plan, Safety Element Goal S3 – Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire. Policy S3-1 – New development should be designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards, with special attention given to fuel management, adequate water supply for suppression and improved access to higher fire risk areas. Policy S3-2 – Ensure that adequate facilities, equipment and personnel are available to meet the demands of fire fighting in the City of Arroyo Grande. Goal S5 – Reduce the potential for harm to individuals and damage to the environment from radiation hazards, hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields, radon, and hazardous trees. Policy S5-2 – Reduce the potential for exposure to humans and the environment by hazardous substances, and develop information programs consistent with “Community Right to Know” laws. 3.5.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.5.3.1 Thresholds of Significance According to standards based on Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines, a project is considered to have a potentially significant adverse impact with regard to hazards and hazardous materials if it: 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-11 Final EIR a) Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; b) Creates 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) Emits hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; d) Were to 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 create a significant hazard to the public or environment; e) Is 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) Is located 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) Would impair implementation of emergency response or an emergency plan; or, h) Would 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. 3.5.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology The proposed Project was evaluated for the presence of hazardous substances that, if present in existing building materials planned for construction/renovation or known to exist in study area media (soil, bedrock, groundwater, or surface water), could result in environmental impacts to human health or the environment if the proposed Project is implemented. Risk of wildfire was evaluated by reviewing Project characteristics and development specifications. The existing Project site conditions were compared with possible future onsite conditions under the proposed Project and fire risks and related hazards associated with proposed future on-site operations were evaluated. Based on data for CalFire Fire Hazard Zone, the proposed Project was assessed for adequate fire protection measures, including defensible space, and emergency access. A qualitative evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed Project was conducted based on the site- specific information obtained and described in Section 3.5.1, Environmental Setting and the Phase I and II ESAs. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.5.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses the potential hazardous materials/risk of upset impacts associated with the proposed Project. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would have impacts to hazardous material, risk of upset, and wildfires as summarized in Table 3.5-3 below. Table 3.5-3. Summary of Project Impacts Hazards Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the proposed 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. None required Less than Significant Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the proposed Project could 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. MM HAZ-2a MM HAZ-2b MM HAZ-2c Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact HAZ-3. The proposed Project would have a 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. None required Less than Significant Impact HAZ-4. Implementation of the proposed Project could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. MM HAZ-4a MM HAZ-4b MM HAZ-4c MM HAZ-4d MM HAZ-4e Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact HAZ-1 Implementation of the proposed 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 (Less than Significant). Construction of the Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials that could result in potential adverse health and environmental impacts if these materials were used, stored, or disposed of improperly, causing accidents, spills, or leaks. Additionally, during 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-13 Final EIR construction, there is a low potential for undocumented subsurface utilities or structures to be encountered and damaged, resulting in a release of a hazardous material. The potential for such incidents would be further reduced by thoroughly screening for subsurface structures in areas prior to commencement of any subsurface work, as required under California Government Code Section 4216. Due to the historic use of the property for agricultural production, it can be anticipated that fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides have been applied to these areas on an as-needed basis, at a minimum. The use and storage of these chemicals on the proposed Project site could have result in undocumented releases of contaminants. However, given the Project site area, such applications of chemicals are not reasonably expected to be reportable quantities to the County of San Luis Obispo Agricultural Commissioner. Following construction, the Project site would include mixed residential and non- residential land uses as described in Section 2.0 Project Description. The uses would be a mix of commercial uses including an approximate 90- to 100 room hotel and separate restaurant uses (Subarea 1 – 2.16 acres); single-family residences (Subarea 2 – 11.62 acres); and an area of assembly, limited commercial uses, attached residential housing, and gardens and orchards (Subarea 3 – 1.51 acres). These uses may require the storage of small quantities of commercial cleaning products, paints, and herbicides for onsite landscaping and maintenance. The proposed Project site is located within 0.25 miles of U.S. Highway 101, with the westernmost portion of the site within 250 feet of the highway. As described in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the transport of hazardous materials on U.S. Highway 101 through the City could impact existing and future development. Such transport related to Project implementation could result in trips from U.S. Highway 101 and Traffic Way. While in rare cases it is possible that hazardous materials associated with the proposed Project could result in adverse effects on the public and environment, such materials would only occur in commercially limited quantities within the Project site, and implementation of BMPs, and site maintenance and security precautions would reduce potential impacts related to future use, handling, storage, or routine transportation of hazardous materials or other chemicals to less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Impact HAZ-2 Implementation of the proposed Project could 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation). As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1 Potential for Hazardous Materials within the Project Vicinity, there is one active permitted UST facility and one open cleanup program site within a 2.0-mile radius of the Project site, as summarized in Table 3.5-1 and Table 3.5-2. The one active UST facility is less than 200 feet from the site and is associated with the Mobil Gas Station, adjacent to the Project site. Additionally, there are 14 inactive LUST Clean-Up sites were identified within 2.0 miles of the Project site where releases of diesel, gasoline, or motor oil previously occurred. Cleanup actions for these sites took place between 1986 and 2013; the closest LUST site to the Project is located at the Mobil Gas Station site where remedial actions were completed for a gasoline release in 2009. Phase I and Phase II ESA were conducted for the proposed Project (Buena Resources 2014; Appendix I). The Phase I ESA recommended that the proposed Project site be sampled and checked for pesticide residue, including methyl bromide, arsenic, Dieldrin and dichloro- diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). The Phase II ESA report provided the results of the recommended sampling and determined that there were trace amounts of chlorinated pesticides, including DDD, DDE and DDT. The reported concentration levels were determined to be below action levels prescribed by the RWQCB for shallow soils in residential areas. Additionally, arsenic was also reported in each of the samples taken; however, the Phase II ESA concluded that no further action is required. Due to the proximity of the adjacent fueling station, a low potential exists for subsurface contamination associated with the UST. Based on these conditions, there is potential for construction workers and/or nearby occupants to be exposed to potentially toxic, hazardous, or otherwise harmful chemicals during excavation, grading, and site preparation activities. Therefore, impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. In order to reduce impacts to less than significant, the following mitigation measures are required. This impact is therefore classified as less than significant with mitigation. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-15 Final EIR Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM HAZ-2a Prior to earthwork activities, a Site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall be developed per California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) requirements. All construction employees that have the potential to come into contact with contaminated soil/bedrock and safety plan, which includes proper training and personal protective equipment. MM HAZ-2b During earthwork activities, procedures shall be followed to eliminate or minimize construction worker or general public exposure to lead and other potential contaminants in soil. Procedures shall include efforts to control fugitive dust, contain and cover excavation debris piles, appropriate laboratory analysis of soil for waste characterization, and segregation of contaminated soil from uncontaminated soil. The applicable regulations associated with excavation, removal, transportation, and disposal of contaminated soil shall be followed (e.g., tarping of trucks and waste manifesting). MM HAZ-2c Prior to beginning construction, additional subsurface sampling of soil/bedrock and groundwater shall be conducted to assess potential releases associated with the listed former adjacent land uses and the potential migration of contaminants onto the Project site. The analytical suite selected shall be consistent with those uses, and shall include applicable analytical methods for appropriate waste characterization and disposal. The sampling strategy shall take into account the locations of potential source areas, and the anticipated lateral and vertical distribution of contaminants in soil and/or groundwater. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a report that is signed by a California Professional Geologist. The report shall include recommendations based upon the findings for additional investigation/remediation if contaminants are detected above applicable screening levels (e.g., excavate and dispose, groundwater and/or soil vapor extraction, or in situ bioremediation). Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall submit the site- specific Health and Safety Plan and Subsurface Soil/Bedrock and Groundwater Investigation Report to the City for review and approval prior 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR to issuance of development permits. The Applicant shall conduct necessary construction employee training prior to the initiation of construction. Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with MM HAZ-2a, -2b, and -2c. An Environmental Monitor shall be made available to monitor environmental compliance of the construction activities. The City shall also inspect the Project site during construction to ensure compliance with required plans. Residual Impact Implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures would reduce residual impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. Impact HAZ-3 The proposed Project would have a 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 (Less than Significant). The easternmost portion of the Lucia Mar Unified School District offices are located 0.25 miles from the westernmost portion of the proposed Project site. Although no students are located at this facility, it is adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School located at 495 Valley Road. No classrooms at the high school are located within the 0.25-mile range; however, several high school sports fields are located within 0.25 miles of the proposed Project site. Emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing school is considered to be potentially significant under CEQA. The proposed Project would include landscaped areas, which may involve application of fertilizers and pesticides on an as-needed basis. However, while the proposed Project site is located within 0.25 mile range of the Lucia Mar Unified School District offices as well as several Arroyo Grande High School sports fields, potential hazardous materials would only include applications of chemicals that are not expected to be reportable quantities to the County of San Luis Obispo Agricultural Commissioner, and consistent with the practices of other existing residential uses throughout the City. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-17 Final EIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact HAZ-4 Implementation of the proposed Project could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fire, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands (Less than Significant with Mitigation). As described in Section 3.5.1.2, Risk of Wildfire within the Project Vicinity, the proposed Subareas 1 and 2 of the Project site would be located in a part of the City that was determined to include moderate and high fire hazard potential, while the majority of Subarea 1 is located in an area designated as Urban Zoned/Non-Wildland/Non-Urban (Figure 3.5-1). The adjacent hillside along the southern border of the site is a natural coast live oak woodland that could be prone to ignition and could provide natural fuels for any structural or wildland fires in the area. The proposed Project would include the construction of a 100-room hotel, a stand-alone restaurant, gardens and orchards as well as single-family residences. Construction of the proposed Project would increase the potential to expose both structures and people to wildland fires. Operation of construction equipment such as saws, welders, generators, and heavy machinery would temporarily introduce new ignition sources into the area. While the chance of accidental ignition by such heavy equipment may seem improbable, several wildland fires in Southern California have been ignited by such equipment. 1 Under Project conditions, wildfires burning into the open space surrounding the proposed Project would present the potential for serious damage to the Project and would potentially threaten the health and safety of hotel patrons and employees, and residents of Subarea 2. Due to the close proximity of the natural coast live oak woodland, the steep slope located on the southern portion of the proposed Project site and the increase in residential population and tourism, the potential exists for impacts related to exposing people or structures to wildland fires. Therefore, impacts related to exposing people or structures to a wildland fires are considered to be potentially significant. In order to reduce impacts to 1 For example, the 2009 Jesusita Fire in Santa Barbara, which burned almost 9,000 acres and destroyed 80 homes, was ignited by landscape equipment during a trail maintenance operation. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR less than significant, mitigation measures are required. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM HAZ-4a All Applicants shall prepare and submit a comprehensive Wildfire Emergency Management Plan for review by the FCFA and the City. The Plan shall consist of measures to reduce the potential for structural damage to the proposed development including: • A detailed description and map of fire protection apparatus and staging locations, the locations of the electric and gas shut off controls, emergency meeting locations, and emergency supply locations; and • Relevant building design specifications that would qualify the building for identification as a safe refuge during a wildfire. MM HAZ-4b Require fire resistant material to be used for building construction in fire hazard areas. Require the installation of smoke detectors in all new residences. MM HAZ-4c The Project site shall be inspected annually by the FCFA. This shall include an inspection of the deadwood and leaf litter, which shall be removed annually prior to the beginning of fire season. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall restate the provisions for fire protection on all grading and building plans. The name and telephone number of the onsite supervisor shall be provided to the FCFA prior to commencement of construction or grading activities. Fire protection measures shall be implemented throughout construction. Plan components and conditions, agreements, and restrictions, including landscaping, shall also be reviewed prior to permit approval for each Subarea. Monitoring. The City shall ensure measures are on plans prior to permit approval. FCFA staff shall spot check for compliance during construction. Permit compliance staff shall verify the installation of the required landscaping in the field. The Project site shall be inspected annually in the spring prior to the onset of the fire season by the FCFA in order to ensure compliance with the above mitigation. This shall include an inspection of 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.5-19 Final EIR the deadwood and leaf litter, which shall be removed annually prior to the beginning of fire season. Mitigation Measures for Subarea 1 MM HAZ-4d Each hotel room shall be required to have an emergency evacuation plan posted in a visible location. Additionally each room shall have a Wildfire Emergency Procedures binder, which shall include relevant information from the Wildfire Emergency Management Plan, such as the locations of safe refuges, locations of First Aid and emergency supplies, and emergency contacts within the hotel. Training requirements for front-desk hotel staff and any other staff routinely interacting with the public shall include First Aid and First Responder certification as well as annual requirements for wildfire emergency management training scenario exercises prior to the onset of fire season. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall restate the provisions for fire protection and emergency evacuation on the Wildfire Emergency Management Plan. Plan components and conditions, agreements, and restrictions, including landscaping, shall be reviewed by the FCFA prior to permit approval for each Subarea. Fire safety training for hotel staff shall be conducted annually prior to the onset of fire season. Monitoring. The City shall ensure measures are on plans prior to permit approval. FCFA staff shall review the emergency evacuation plan. Mitigation Measures for Subareas 1 and 2 MM HAZ-4e The final plant selections for Subareas 1 and 2 shall be limited to fire- resistant native species. Non-native species shall not be included in the final landscaping plan. The final landscape plan for Subareas 1, 2, and 3 shall define precisely the final location and character of trees, as well as locations and types of new plantings. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall indicate the types and species of plants on landscape plans. Plan components and conditions, agreements, and restrictions, including landscaping, shall be reviewed by the City and FCFA prior to permit approval for each Subarea. 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.5-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Monitoring. The City shall ensure measures are on plans prior to permit approval. Landscape plans shall be reviewed by the FCFA. The Project site shall be inspected annually in the spring prior to the onset of the fire season by the FCFA in order to ensure compliance with the above mitigation. This shall include an inspection of the deadwood and leaf litter, which shall be removed annually prior to the beginning of fire season. Residual Impact Implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures would reduce residual impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant. 3.5.5 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed listed mitigation measures would reduce the level of impacts related to hazardous materials to levels that are less than significant. From a cumulative standpoint, individual projects throughout the City will be required to mitigate their impacts on an individual basis, which will reduce the potential for cumulative impacts. Therefore, the cumulative impact of this Project and other known developments within the vicinity would be less than significant. 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-1 Final EIR 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes potential hydrology and water quality impacts to surface water and groundwater from implementation of the proposed Project in the context of flooding, runoff, and other drainage conditions on the Project site and in the surrounding watersheds. The hydrologic analysis for this section is based on information from the Final San Luis Obispo County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM) prepared by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in July 2014, the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 1 Hydrology Report Preliminary prepared by RRM Design Group in February 2016, the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 2 and 3 Hydrology Report Preliminary prepared by RRM Design Group in May 2015, and the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared in 2010 by the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Program. Hydrology reports for the Project site are contained within Appendix J of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 3.6.1 Environmental Setting 3.6.1.1 Regional Setting Hydrology and Drainage The Project site is located within the Arroyo Grande Creek Hydrological Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrological Unit, just one of the watersheds within the South County Sub- Region, which includes the urban areas of San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Oceano, and Nipomo (San Luis Obispo FCWCD 2014). Within the Estero Bay Hydrological Unit 10, the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed drains approximately 150 square miles (95,998 acres) of land predominantly used for agriculture (US-LT Resource Conservation District 2015). Average seasonal precipitation throughout the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed varies from 12 inches to 35 inches (Department of Water Resources 2002). The Project site is located entirely within the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed approximately 1,860 feet from the Village Core, which is located along the banks of Arroyo Grande Creek approximately 4.3 miles upstream from the mouth of the creek. The site is located downstream of the Lopez Reservoir. The Lopez Reservoir, which serves as the source of Arroyo Grande Creek, was completed by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in 1968 to provide the Arroyo Grande basin with 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR reliable municipal water supply, agricultural water supply, groundwater recharge, recreation, wildlife habitat, and flood control. The lake has a storage capacity of 49,388 acre-feet (AF) of water (San Luis Obispo County 2016). The Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed and its tributaries encompass 190 square miles, reaching a maximum elevation of 3,200 feet above mean sea-level (msl) (Department of Water Resources 2002). The watershed generally drains to the southeast via the 13 mile long Arroyo Grande Creek where it meets the Pacific Ocean through an estuary adjacent to Oceano lagoon. Arroyo Grande Creek originates to the northwest from Lopez Lake which is located at an elevation of 558 feet in the western slopes of the Santa Lucia Range. The Creek flows southwest adjacent to Lopez Drive before flowing underneath the U.S. Highway 101 and traveling along the southern City limits of Oceano where it drains westward to Oceano Lagoon. Flooding In past years, the Arroyo Grande Creek system has experienced extensive flooding, resulting in the inundation of prime farmlands. A small, rural community at the time, Arroyo Grande and surrounding communities organized the Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Project (AGCFCP) in 1961 to reduce the impacts to the agricultural economy and growing urban infrastructure caused by flooding (Waterways Consulting, Inc. 2010). The AGCFCP constructed levees along Arroyo Grande Creek in attempts to channelize and control flows in the event of a 50-year flood, but the levees have only resulted in increased flows and sediment deposition in the creek due to stormwater runoff. As of 2005, as little as 15 percent of the original flood channel capacity remains and since then, flood channel management plans and maintenance programs have been established to reduce the threat of flood disasters within the Arroyo Grande region (Central Coast Salmon Enhancement 2005). Storm Probability Flood zone mapping and drainage improvements are based on the probability of a certain amount of rain to fall within a particular time frame, usually 24 hours. From rainfall gage records, the size of a storm that has a one percent probability of occurring in any one year within a particular watershed can be calculated. A storm with this probability is often referred to as the “100-year storm” since on average one such storm would be expected to occur in a 100-year period (or a one percent chance in any given year), and the associated Arr o yo G r a n d e CreekArroyoGrande C reek Los Ber r os Cr e e k Tar Spring C r e e k 101 101 227 227 1 1 East Cherry AvenueEast Cherry AvenueCorbett Canyon RoadCorbett Canyon RoadHuasna RoadHuasna Road East Cherry AvenueValley RoadCorbett Canyon RoadHuasna RoadNoyes RoadHuas n a R o a dBranch Mill R oadBranc h Mill R o a d Tally H o R o a d Fair Oaks AvenueEast Gr a n d A v e n u e Traffic WayExisting Man-made Drainage Ditch LEGEND Project Site 100-Year Floodplain Creek/ Stream City of Arroyo Grande 0 2,500 SCALE IN FEET N 3.6-1 FIGURE100-Year Floodplain in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project 3.6-3 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR water runoff termed the “100-year flood.”1 Similarly, a storm that has a four percent probability of occurring in any one year is referred to as the “25-year storm,” and flows from this storm are called Q25 flows or 25-year floods. 3.6.1.2 Project Site Setting Existing Onsite Drainage The 15.29-acre Project site is located on a relatively level ground that includes agricultural farmland in the southeast region of the City of Arroyo Grande. The site is located approximately 1,890 feet south of Arroyo Grande Creek. Along the southern boundary of Subarea 2 and 3 within the Project site, at the toe of the offsite north-facing hillside, lies an approximately 5 foot wide manmade drainage ditch made of permeable materials and used for the purpose of collecting agricultural runoff and the runoff from the hillside. The drainage feature transports the runoff along the southern edge of the property to an existing 24-inch storm drain near the southwest corner of the Project site. The overall drainage pattern for the site is predominantly toward the northwest, with a majority of runoff flowing overland toward the intersection of East Cherry and Traffic Way (RRM Design Group 2015). Flood Hazards As described by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site does not lie within any designated flood plains (FEMA 2015). Designated flood plains within the Arroyo Grande Valley Sub-basin lie along the creek banks of the Arroyo Grande Creek approximately 4,100 feet to the west of the Project site. Additional flood prone areas are located in the southwest regions of the City, in the flat, low-elevation agricultural fields just south of Arroyo Grande Creek. Adjacent Slope Stability and Mudslide Hazards Properties located on or adjacent to natural slopes face many threats and hazards in regards to the stability of the slopes within their vicinity. An unstable slope may give away, resulting in landslides, mudflows, or even debris flows. An analysis of the slope adjacent 1 The “100-year storm” is a probability estimate based on incomplete rainfall gage data that in most watersheds has been collected for only approximately 50 years. Therefore, it is possible for several “100- year” storms to occur in the course of a few years, which would result in a revision to the estimated storm probabilities. In addition, storms do not exhibit the same rainfall intensity uniformly, and the same storm system that exhibits a 100-year intensity in a particular watershed can have a much lower intensity in an adjacent watershed. 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-5 Final EIR to the site for slope stability was conducted by GeoSolutions, Inc. in August 2015 and is located in Appendix H of this EIR. Their analysis determined that the slope is stable under natural circumstances, but poor surface drainage may result in prolonged periods of saturation and severe erosion (GeoSolutions, Inc. 2015). 3.6.2 Regulatory Setting 3.6.2.1 Federal Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for federal flood disaster management through the Floodplain Program. FEMA divides flood areas into three zones: Zone A for areas of 100-year flood, base flood elevations not determined; Zone B for areas of 500-year flood; and Zone C or Zone X for areas of minimal flooding. The National Flood Insurance Program 100-year floodplain is considered to be the base flood condition. This is defined as a flood event of a magnitude that would be equaled or exceeded an average of once during a 100-year period. Floodways are defined as stream channels plus adjacent floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment as much as possible so that 100-year floods can be carried without substantial increases (no more than one foot) in flood elevations. Development in these floodplain areas are subject to the standard conditions of approval of the San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (1977) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later referred to as the Federal Clean Water Act), 33 United States Code (USC) § 1251 et seq. (1972) (CWA), is the primary federal statute governing water quality. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives the Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs. The statute’s goal is to regulate all discharges into the nation’s waters and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of those waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and storm water discharges, requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR filling of wetlands. The following CWA sections assist in ensuring water quality in surrounding water bodies: • Section 208. Requiring that states develop programs to identify and control non- point sources of pollution, including runoff. • Section 303. Requiring states to establish and enforce water quality standards to protect and enhance beneficial uses of water for such purposes as recreation and fisheries. • Section 304(a)(1). Requiring the administrator of the USEPA to develop and publish water quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge regarding the effects of pollutants in any body of water. • Section 313(a). Requiring that federal agencies observe state and local water quality regulations. • Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 added to Section 402(p) to the CWA. Pursuant to Section 402(p)(4) of the CWA, the USEPA is required to promulgate regulations for NPDES permit applications for stormwater discharges. Clean Water Act Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] Program) (1972) The NPDES Stormwater Program regulates stormwater discharges from three potential sources: municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), construction activities, and industrial activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States and MS4 facilities. To prevent harmful pollutants from being washed or dumped into an MS4, operators must obtain a NPDES permit and develop a stormwater management program. The program regulates for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), which is the maximum amount of an impairing substance or stressor (e.g., pollutant) that a water body can receive and assimilate, and still safely meet Water Quality Standards, defined by the Federal Clean Water Act. 3.6.2.2 State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (1969) This policy mandates that waters of the state shall be protected such that activities that may affect waters of the state shall be regulated to attain the highest quality. The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is given authority to enforce Porter- Cologne Water Control Act as well as Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and has adopted a statewide general permit that applies to almost all stormwater discharges. This general 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-7 Final EIR permit, which is implemented and enforced throughout San Luis Obispo County, is implemented by the local Central Coast RWQCB and requires all owners of land where construction activity occurs to: • Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to stormwater systems and other waters of the U.S., • Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan emphasizing stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs), and • Perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures to assess their effectiveness. The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) The SWRCB has adopted a statewide construction general permit that applies to storm water and non-storm water discharges from construction activities. This general permit, which is implemented and enforced in the Arroyo Grande area by the Central Coast RWQCB, requires all owners of land where construction activity occurs to: • Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm water systems and other waters of the U.S.; • Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) emphasizing storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs); and • Perform inspections of storm water pollution prevention measures to assess their effectiveness. In addition, SWRCB regulations mandate a “non-degradation policy” for state waters, especially those of high quality. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) The SGMA is a statewide policy that empowers local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans that relate to the needs and resources of their communities. It is the intent of the SGMA to: • Provide for the sustainable management of groundwater basins; • Enhance local management of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store groundwater and Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution. It is the intent of the Legislature to preserve the security of water rights in the state to the greatest extent possible consistent with the sustainable management of groundwater; • Establish minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management; 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR • Provide local groundwater agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater; • Avoid or minimize subsidence; • Improve data collection and understanding about groundwater; • Increase groundwater storage and remove impediments to recharge; • Manage groundwater basins through the actions of local governmental agencies to the greatest extent feasible, while minimizing state intervention to only when necessary to ensure that local agencies manage groundwater in a sustainable manner; and • Provide a more efficient and cost-effective groundwater adjudication process that protects water rights, ensures due process, prevents unnecessary delay, and furthers the objectives of this part. 3.6.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan As the overarching policy document guiding development in the City, the Arroyo Grande General Plan contains policies to regulate all aspects of physical growth and conservation in the community. Flood hazard policy in the City of Arroyo Grande is directed by the Safety Element of the General Plan and is designed to reduce the damage to structures and the danger to lives in the event of flooding, dam failure inundation, and any other foreseeable water hazards. The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element addresses policies relevant to flood control and conservation of necessary flood plains. General Plan, Safety Element Goal S2 – Reduce damage to structures and the danger to life caused by flooding, dam failure, inundation, and other water hazards. Policy S2-1 – Strictly enforce flood hazard regulations both current and revised. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and other requirements for the placement of structures in flood plains shall be followed. Maintain standards for development in flood-prone and poorly drained areas. Standard S2-1.1 – Discourage development, particularly critical facilities, in areas of high flood potential. Do not allow development within areas designated as the 100-year flood plain that would obstruct flood flow or be subject to flood damage. Do not allow development which will create or worsen known flood or drainage problems. Standard S2-1.3 – Review development plans for construction of structures in low-lying areas, or any area which may pose a serious drainage or 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-9 Final EIR flooding condition. Susceptibility to damage from flooding should be determine based on the 100-year flood. Goal S4 – Minimize the potential for loss of life and property resulting from geologic and seismic hazards. Program S4-6.1 – For developments in areas of known slope instability, landslides, or slopes steeper than 20 percent, the stability of slopes shall be addressed by registered professionals practicing in their respective fields of expertise. For subdivisions, such studies should be performed prior to delineating lot lines and building envelopes. General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Goal Ag1 – Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Policy Ag 1-5.3 – Minimize flood damage potential to farmland. Practice Ag1-5.3.1 – Assure that urban developments incorporate adequate runoff and drainage detention and flood control. Goal Ag2 – Allocate and conserve ground and surface water resources for agricultural use and minimize potential Fringe Area and urban development that would divert such resources for agriculture. Policy Ag2-4 – Detention, retention and recharge basins shall be designated as open space and habitat resources in addition to flood control and other functions associated with a development. Their extent and engineering shall permit establishment of vegetative growth and utilization for passive recreation or compatible agricultural uses. The design of such Facilities shall include specific operation and maintenance programs that ensure that the capacity is not reduced. Goal C/OS2 – Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystems. Policy C/OS2-1 – Designate all streams and riparian corridors as Conservation/Open Space (C/OS). Practice C/OS2-1.2 – Preserve stream and riparian corridors in their natural state, except where necessary for flood control, periodic maintenance, creek bank protection, and creek restoration consistent with State and Federal permits. Concrete channel and underground piping of creeks and drainages shall be minimized and allowed if it is determined by the City Council to be necessary for public health, safety and welfare. Bridges are preferred over arched or piped culverts. 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Practice C/OS2-1.3 – Where feasible, maintain a development setback of 25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope, habitat and floodplain characteristics. Locate development outside the setback. City Municipal Code City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Title 13, Chapter13.24 – Excavation, Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control The City’s municipal code (§13.24) established policies and regulations designed to safeguard the public health, safety, general welfare, and natural environment from the harmful effects associated with erosion and sedimentation, dust emissions, and stormwater runoff. This chapter addresses the compliance with the NPDES Phase II stormwater regulations. This chapter also sets forth local stormwater requirements, to avoid pollution of watercourses with sediments or other pollutants generated on or caused by surface runoff on or across construction sites. Storm Water Management Plan NPDES Phase II Program (SWMP) The City SWMP was prepared by the City pursuant to the identification of the City as a small municipal separate storm sewer system requiring coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ (General Permit). The SWMP is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and to protect water quality. Additionally, the SWMP will: • Serve as a planning and guidance document to be used by the City’s regulatory body, all City departments, contractors, and the general public; • Be dynamic and adaptively managed to address changes in General Permit requirements, organizational structure, responsibilities, and goals; • Define techniques and measurable goals for measuring Best Management Practice (BMP) effectiveness; and • Define a five-year schedule for Storm Water Management Program implementation to comply with the requirements of the General Permit. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region The proposed Project site is located within the coverage area for the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Post-Construction Requirements. The primary goal of the Post-Construction Requirements are to ensure that the Permittee is reducing 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-11 Final EIR post-construction related pollutant discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), and is preventing stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards. These requirements and regulations apply to all development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued under the Permittee’s planning, buildings, or other comparable authority. Post-Construction Requirements include site design and runoff reduction, water quality treatment, stormwater control plans, runoff reduction, and peak stormwater runoff management. Under this regulatory document, Project applicants are required to prepare a separate Stormwater Control Plan which summarizes site design and Stormwater Control Measures, as well as other requirements. 3.6.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.6.3.1 Thresholds of Significance Thresholds of significance for impacts to hydrology and surface and groundwater quality were modified from Appendix G of the 2016 Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Impacts from the proposed Project would be considered significant if they were to: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or 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; 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 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 involving flooding; including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 3.6.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology This analysis considers impacts from both the construction and the operation of the proposed Project, including potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality, flooding, or groundwater basin capacity. This analysis is based upon available data from the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 2 & Subarea 3 Hydrology Report Preliminary (Appendix J), a Numerical Slope Stability Analysis 2 (Appendix L), the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and Arroyo Grande Creek management plans. 3.6.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures As discussed under environmental setting, the elevation of the Project site is 120 feet above sea level and the site is located 2.6 miles east of the tsunami or seiche inundation area. Therefore, impacts related to tsunami and seiche hazards would be insignificant. Project impacts related to hydrology and water quality are described below. 2 The Preliminary Hydrology Reports and Numerical Slope Stability Analysis are Applicant-prepared reports for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, which assess existing site hydrology and slope stability. These reports have been reviewed by Amec Foster Wheeler. 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-13 Final EIR Table 3.6-1. Summary of Project Impacts Hydrology Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact HYD-1. Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to significantly impact surface water quality from increased erosion, sedimentation and polluted runoff. MM HYD-1a MM HYD-1b MM HYD-1c MM HYD-1d Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact HYD-2. Irrigation of the proposed cultural gardens on Subarea 3 would draw water from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, resulting in incremental impacts to groundwater resources. None required Less than Significant Impact HYD-3. The proposed Project would alter existing onsite drainage systems, resulting in potential impacts to the erosion, siltation, and flooding on or off the site. MM HYD-3a MM HYD-3b MM HYD-3c Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact HYD-4. The proposed Project is located outside a 100-year flood hazard area and presents less than significant issues regarding onsite flood hazards. None required Less than Significant Impact HYD-5. The proposed Project site is located at the base of an adjacent natural hillside that has the potential to result in a mudflow which would directly inundate the Project development. None required Less than Significant Impact HYD-1 Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to significantly impact surface water quality from increased erosion, sedimentation and polluted runoff (Less than Significant with Mitigation). During construction, particularly during phases that include excavation, grading, and other earthwork, the potential exists for substantial increases in soil erosion and sediment transport that have the potential to affect water quality from runoff. Additionally, the presence and use of large construction machinery on the site has the potential to result in a spill of fluids, such as oil and gas, which could be mobilized by stormwater runoff. The Project site is relatively flat and nearly all surfaces are permeable. Early stages of development would allow for low risks to soil and contamination due to the relatively high permeable area, but as construction advances, more impermeable surfaces will be created and soil and contaminant mobilization would increase. Construction of the Project site would include activities such as cut and fill, grading, site excavation, soil compaction, trenching, etc. These construction activities could impact 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR hydrology by exposing disturbed ground to potential erosion or by introducing pollutants into the runoff through chemical spills or presence of machinery or debris. The exact list of construction activities have not yet been determined; however, all activities would be required to conform to the rules and regulations established in the City General Plan policies, City Municipal Plan, SWRCB, the City SWMP, Federal Clean Water Act, and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Under the Central Coast RWQCB Project Applicants are required to adhere to post-construction requirements. As such, stormwater related impacts resulting from operation of the Subareas following construction will be reduced through implementation of post-construction requirements, and impacts to stormwater runoff would be regulated and reduced. With implementation of standard regulatory conditions and the mitigation measures proposed below, potential impacts to water quality during the construction period of this Project would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM HYD-1a Notice of Intent. Prior to beginning construction, the Applicants shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site. MM HYD-1b Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The Applicants shall require the building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. The contractor is responsible for understanding the State General Permit and implementing the SWPPP during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction activities on the Project site in excess of one acre, or where the area of disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Project’s plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur onsite during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-15 Final EIR The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City along with grading/development plans for review and approval. MM HYD-1c Notice of Termination of Construction. The Applicants shall file a notice of termination of construction of the development with the RWQCB, identifying how pollution sources were controlled during the construction of the Project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site. MM HYD-1d All required actions shall be implemented pursuant to Municipal Code 13.24.110 including Storm Water Control Plan submitted to the City of Arroyo Grande and the RWQCB regulations under the NPDES Phase II program. Plan Requirements and Timing. SWPPP and notices shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to the initiation of construction. The Plan(s) shall be designed to address erosion and sediment control during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed areas are permanently stabilized. Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with the SWPPP. A Geotechnical Engineer or an Engineering Geologist shall be made available to monitor technical aspects of the grading activities. The City shall also inspect the site during grading to monitor runoff and to verify reseeding and revegetation after conclusion of grading activities. Residual Impact With implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts associated with construction runoff would be less than significant. Impact HYD-2 Irrigation of the proposed cultural gardens on Subarea 3 would draw water from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, resulting in incremental impacts to hydrologic conditions of groundwater resources (Less than Significant). The Village Mixed-Use designated Subarea 3 would draw water from the Tri-Cities Mesa sub-basin of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin via one of the two onsite wells, for the use of supplemental irrigation of common area landscaping and the proposed cultural 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR gardens. The other existing groundwater well would be removed. Historically, supplemental irrigation for agricultural use on the site was previously obtained from the two onsite wells, and Subarea 3 would only use well water to supplement landscaping. As presented in Table 3.6-2, the City has an adjudicated right to 1,323 afy of water from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin as well as 200 afy of water from the Pismo Formation. Additionally, groundwater pumping of local groundwater basins for use by the City is predicted to be much less than historic pumping years and the proposed Project would not result in substantial decreases in groundwater levels for the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin that would affect the basin’s hydrologic conditions. Table 3.6-2. Historic and Predicted Groundwater Pumping (AFY) Basin 20061 20081 20101 20152 20202 Santa Maria Groundwater Basin 1,025 1,096 539 798 497 Pismo Formation 0 67 70 200 200 Total Groundwater Pumped 1,025 1,164 609 998 697 1Historic groundwater pumped. 2Predicted groundwater pumped. Source: (City of Arroyo Grande 2012). Overall groundwater use is expected to decrease with the conversion of irrigated agricultural lands to less water-intensive urban uses. Additionally, given implementation of the Project’s LID, groundwater recharge will occur. Due to the expected decrease in groundwater extraction given the change of uses associated with the Project, impacts to the hydrologic conditions of groundwater resources and the groundwater level of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin would be less than significant. Impacts associated with the adequate water supply are addressed in Impact UT-3 in Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact HYD-3 The proposed Project would alter existing onsite drainage systems, resulting in potential impacts to the erosion, siltation, and flooding on or off the site (Less than Significant). 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-17 Final EIR The Project site is currently serviced by a manmade drainage ditch historically used to capture surface runoff from agricultural operations and reduce the risk of farmland flooding. The drainage ditch directs captured runoff from the site, adjacent hillside, and offsite flows from eastern properties adjacent to the drainage ditch, and directs the runoff to an existing 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain near the southwest corner of the site. The Project site is predominantly covered by permeable open soils which do little to increase surface flows and flooding, but have a higher tendency to increase sediment loading. The direct effect of development of the Project would be to replace the Project site’s 15.29 acres of largely permeable surfaces with commercial, residential, and other related development that include parking lots, buildings, walkways, roadways, bikeways, driveways, and other potentially impervious features. Subarea 1 Impacts: Subarea 1 has historically been cultivated with irrigated agriculture and runoff within the site generally flows overland towards East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way, where it then enters the existing drainage infrastructure at this intersection. Development of Subarea 1 would result in the generation of approximately 72,000 square feet (sf) of impervious surface area, covering approximately 74.3 percent of the Subarea 1 site with impervious surfaces. Development of Subarea 1 for hotel and restaurant use would include an onsite storm drain network which would collect, detail and retain, and release storm water in accordance with City, County, and state requirements (RRM Design Group 2016; Appendix J). The onsite drainage network would include approximately 3,800 cubic feet (cf) of storm water detention with a peak release flow of 1.6 cubic feet per second (cfs), and a retention facility which can retain a minimum of 11,700 cf of storm water. These facilities will be located under the proposed parking stalls, and volume is achieved through the use of underground infiltrators. These detention/retention facilities are designed to capture and contain storm water flow expected of a 50-year storm event. Should storm water flows exceed capacities of these facilities, excess flows would discharge into the proposed East Cherry Avenue 48-inch storm drain, which includes consideration of these flows and has a maximum capacity of approximately 120 cfs. The Subarea 1 Hydrology Report concluded that the proposed drainage on Subarea 1 would meet applicable storm water standards and that onsite peak flows would be captured through the proposed detention basin (see Appendix J). 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Subarea 2 Impacts: The Applicant-prepared Tract 3081 Site Plan for Subarea 2 indicates that approximately 55.6 percent of Subarea 2 would be covered by impervious surfaces attributed to streets/alleys, buildings, on-street parking, and walkways. Such areas would have the effect of increasing both the total volume of stormwater runoff and the peak flow runoff. To accommodate the increased flows, the Project includes a Low Impact Design (LID) features to comprehensively address stormwater management onsite. The LID includes conveyance of 40 percent of building roof runoff to landscape areas and detached hardscape to provide infiltration into parkways. The development within Subarea 2 proposes to retain and infiltrate approximately16,400 cf of stormwater onsite. Additionally, the Project proposes approximately 11,300 cf of onsite detention and improvements to the existing drainage system onsite. The Project would involve removal of the existing manmade drainage ditch and construct a new pass-through 48-inch diameter subsurface stormwater pipe within Subarea 2, which will collect stormwater and runoff, tying into the existing 48-inch stub at the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue and catching flows at the southeast corner of the site (refer to Figure 2-8). Subarea 3 Impacts: The Applicant would develop the largely undeveloped Subarea 3 with impervious surfaces for structures, parking areas, driveways, pathways and curbs. While historic drainage patterns through Subarea 3 had been modified over time, the majority of onsite flows predominantly flow overland to East Cherry Avenue. Proposed gardens and landscaped areas within Subarea 3 would retain some stormwater flows within the Subarea; although, the majority of flows would be directed toward the proposed headwall inlet located at the southeast corner of Subarea 3 and would divert flows through the proposed 48-inch subsurface stormwater pipe. Therefore, given compliance with proposed Project features, Specific Plan development standards, and stormwater management Best Management Practices (BMPs), and prescribed mitigation measures, the proposed Project would not expose persons or structures to significant flood hazards, nor result in new significant flood events. Furthermore, due to the suitability of the new drainage system to divert offsite flows, mitigate onsite flows, implementation of BMPs, reduced potential for sediment loading, and implementation of City-reviewed Project design guidelines, impacts to erosion, 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-19 Final EIR siltation, and flooding both on and offsite are considered less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM HYD-1d also applies. MM HYD-3a Storm Water Quality Treatment Controls. Best Management Practice (BMP) devices shall be incorporated into the project Final Master Drainage Plan. The devices shall be sited and sized to intercept and treat all dry weather surface runoff, the runoff from 28 percent of the 2-year storm event, and accommodate the first flush (1 inch) during 24-hour storm events. The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by the City. MM HYD-3b Stormwater BMP Maintenance Manual. The Applicants shall prepare a development maintenance manual for the Project, which shall include detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of any stormwater facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post- construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require that stormwater BMP devices be inspected, cleaned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance specifications. The manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy season (i.e., October 15th) and immediately after the end of the rainy season (i.e., May 15th). The manual shall also require that all devices be checked after major storm events. MM HYD-3c Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual Maintenance Report. The developer or acceptable maintenance organization shall submit to the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department a detailed report prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities, BMPs, and any necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis (October 15th and April 15th of each year). The requirement for maintenance and report submittal shall be recorded against the property. Plan Requirements and Timing. Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual Maintenance Report and notices shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to the initiation of construction. The Plan(s) shall be designed to address the conditions of private stormwater facilities, BMPs, 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3.6-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR and necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis throughout implementation and operation of the Project. Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with the SWPPP. A Civil Engineer shall be made available to monitor conditions and maintenance activities of all private stormwater facilities on a semi-annual basis. Residual Impact With implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts associated with runoff resulting from construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant. Impact HYD-4 The proposed Project is located outside a 100-year flood hazard area and presents less than significant issues regarding onsite flood hazards (Less than Significant). As discussed in Section 3.6.1, Environmental Setting of this section, the site is located outside the 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, implementation of this Project would not result in risks to on-site structures, nor would the Project impede or redirect flood flows, and this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact HYD-5 The proposed Project site is located at the base of an adjacent natural hillside that has the potential to result in a mudflow, which could directly inundate the Project development (Less than Significant). As previously discussed, the Project site is located at the toe of a natural hillside and an applicant prepared Slope Stability Report found that the hillside was stable under normal conditions. However, the study concluded that poor drainage of the hillside could increase soil saturation and slope erosion which would result in a potential mudflow. If such an event were to occur, the Project is directly in the path of the mudflow and significant damage and threats toward life could occur on the properties located on Subarea 2 and Subarea 3. Plans for development of the Subarea 2 site include the construction of 5-foot retaining wall along the southern slope to shield residential units from runoff and flows 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.6-21 Final EIR traveling down the natural hillside. Final plans and specifications would be submitted for review and approval by the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department. The City would ensure that the retaining wall would meet performance and safety standards established by the City Engineer or designated specialist as part of planning review processes. Therefore, while the Project could potentially face inundation by mudflows, this impact is considered to be less than significant with construction of the retaining wall. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 3.6.5 Cumulative Impacts With consideration of the development of other independent projects currently under construction or planned for construction listed with Table 3.0-1, the proposed Project would contribute to adverse cumulative impacts to hydrological resources and water quality. Implementation of the Project would result in the conversion of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces, incrementally contributing to cumulative runoff and water quality issues. However, proposed mitigation measures described for the project would reduce impacts of the project, and therefore its contribution to cumulative impacts within the region, to a less than significant level. Additionally, all proposed developments within the City would be required to adhere by the rules and regulations established by local, state, and federal agencies. Therefore, impacts associated with this Project, cumulative to those generated by cumulative projects, would be considered less than significant. 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-1 Final EIR 3.7 LAND USE This section describes existing land uses on the Project site and surrounding vicinity, and evaluates potential land use effects associated with the amount, location, and type of future development that could occur under the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). This section also evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project with applicable adopted programs and policies adopted by the jurisdiction within which the Project site is located. 3.7.1 Environmental Setting 3.7.1.1 Project Vicinity The Project site is entirely within the City of Arroyo Grande (City) jurisdiction, located at the southeastern extent of the City, an area characterized by a mix of urban and agricultural uses. The Project site is located approximately 300 feet of the U.S. Highway 101 Traffic Way 186 off-ramp on the southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue in a predominantly residential area. Residential neighborhoods border the Project site to the east, north, and south, with commercial uses along Traffic Way west of the site. 3.7.1.2 Project Site The Project site is composed of three parcels referred to as Subarea 1, Subarea 2, and Subarea 3 (Table 3.7-1). Subarea 1 is the western-most 2.16-acre subdivision that is currently designated as Traffic-Way Mixed Use. Subarea 2 is the middle and largest parcel at 11.62 acres, which is currently designated as Agriculture and used for row crops. The smallest parcel, Subarea 3, consists of 1.51 acres of vacant and fallow agricultural land owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) and is designated Agriculture, although it has not been historically used for this purpose. Together, the Project site consists of 15.29 acres of undeveloped land. Table 3.7-1. Project Site Land Use Designations and Zoning Subarea Ownership Land Use Designation/Zoning Acres 1 SRK Hotels Mixed Use/ Traffic Way Mixed-Use 2.16 2 Mangano Homes, Inc. Agriculture/ Agriculture 11.62 3 Arroyo Grande Valley JWA Agriculture/ Agriculture 1.51 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.7.2 Regulatory Setting 3.7.2.1 Federal No federal policies or regulations related to land use would apply to the Project. 3.7.2.2 State Government Code Section 63450 State law (Government Code §63450) authorizes cities to adopt specific plans for implementation of their general plans in a defined area. All Specific Plans must comply with Sections 65400-65457 of the Government Code. These provisions require that a Specific Plan be consistent with the adopted General Plan and that all subsequent subdivisions and development, public works projects, and zoning regulations must be consistent with the Specific Plan. Specific plans are required to include distribution, location and types of uses, development, and improvements to public facilities and infrastructure. Tailored regulations, conditions, programs, standards and guidelines help implement the vision for long-range development of the specific plan area. 3.7.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan In accordance with California State law, the City adopted a general plan to guide development within the City. The General Plan expresses the City’s development goals, state public policy in regards to future land uses, provides the basis for local government decision making, and informs citizens and decision-makers of policies pertaining to development. The purpose of the General Plan is to identify appropriate location of land uses, as well as basic design and function of circulation, open space, and infrastructure policies, as well as public service needs. The City’s General Plan consists of eight state- mandated and optional elements: Fringe and Urban Land Use Element (2001) Circulation Element (2001); Housing Element (2013); Noise Element (2001); Safety Element (2001); Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element (Amended 2007); and, Parks and Recreation Element (2001). Project consistency with specific policies from the General Plan are analyzed below in Table 3.7-3. 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-3 Final EIR Land Use Element Policy LU10-2 – For relatively large properties or sites involving diverse adjoining land uses or unusual or unique features, the City may utilize a “Planned Development” or “Specific Plan” combining designation or land use classifications. Policy LU10-2.1 – Planned Development (PD) combining designation shall require any use or development (more than one dwelling) to be subject to PD zoning approval as described in the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code. Policy LU10-2.2 – Specific Plan (SP) classification shall require any use or development (more than one dwelling) be subject to preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan pursuant to Article 8 (Sections 65450-65456) of State of California Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. Policy LU10-2.3 – Encourage appropriate use of Specific Plans, and/or Planned Development combining designation with beneficial features that could not otherwise be achieved. Examples of such features include clustering houses and maintaining open spaces, mixed use, and a design that is sensitive to the site as a whole and its setting. 3.7.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance With respect to land use, Appendix G of the 2015 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that a project would have a significant impact on the environment if it would: a) Physically divide an established community; b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or, c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.7.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology Consistency with relevant General Plan and Municipal Code goals, policies, and programs are evaluated in Table 3.7-3 below, as well as within individual sections of this EIR. Only those stated goals, policies, or programs that are most relevant to the Project are highlight in this section. In accordance with CEQA and the purpose of this EIR, this discussion primarily focuses on those goals and policies that relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, and an assessment of whether any inconsistency with these standards creates a significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that an EIR discuss inconsistencies with applicable plans that the decision-makers should address. A project need not be consistent with each and every policy and objective in a planning document. Rather, a project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it is compatible with and will further the objectives and policies of the plans. 3.7.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 3.7-2. Summary of Project Impacts Land Use Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact LU-1. The proposed Project would not result in the physical divide of an established community. None required Less than Significant Impact LU-2. The proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans as none exist within the Project vicinity. None required No Impact Impact LU-3. The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies in the General Plan designed to protect agricultural resources, public views, recreational resources, and reduce the threat to new developments from fire. MM AG-1a MM HAZ-4a-e MM REC-1a MM VIS-1a MM VIS-4a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact LU-1 The proposed Project would not result in the physical divide of an established community (Less than Significant). The Project site is located in the southern urban fringe of the City, adjacent to residential communities that lie to the north and east. Implementation of the Project is intended to be 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-5 Final EIR compatible with the existing residential developments located to the north and east of the Project site. Currently, the site consists of undeveloped Traffic Way Mixed Use and Agriculture zoned lands, which would be developed with residential and commercial uses consistent with the existing land use pattern of the City. Given the Project would be developed on the edge of existing development, and would provide a smooth transition with respect to existing nearby land uses, the Project would not divide any established communities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact LU-2 The proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans as none exist within the Project vicinity (No Impact). No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (HCP or NCCP) have been adopted that apply to the Project site or immediately surrounding areas. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on these conservation plans. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact LU-3 The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies in the General Plan designed to protect agricultural resources, public views, recreational resources, and reduce the threat to new developments from fire (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Consistent with the purpose of this EIR, this discussion primarily focuses on those goals and policies that relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, and an assessment of whether any inconsistency with these standards creates a significant physical impact on the environment. Discussion of each applicable General Plan policy is provided in Table 3.7-3. Based on this review, it is found that the Project is potentially inconsistent with policies designed to protect aesthetics and visual resources related to public views, agricultural resources, hazards related to wildland fires, and recreational resources as further summarized below. 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Aesthetics and Visual Resources The proposed Project presents a potential inconsistency with General Plan Policies C/OS1- 1 and LU11-2.4. These policies establish standards and protect the scenic resources and viewsheds of the City. Views of the Santa Lucia Mountains and natural hillsides from East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way would be partially blocked by the development of the Project site, disrupting existing unobstructed views for the residents of East Cherry Avenue and travelers along this road and Traffic Way. Many residences included in the development of Subarea 2 and Subarea 3 would be provided views of neighborhood amenities, visually pleasing landscape designs, and the existing views of the natural hillsides south of the Project site. Existing views from the site and vicinity would be disrupted by implementation of the Project. While views of the hillsides to the south would be obstructed for existing residents along East Cherry Avenue, the Project would result in site visual characteristics consistent with adjacent residential areas, resulting in a more uniform visual character in the Project vicinity. With implementation of MM VIS-1 (to reduce neighborhood loss of scenic views) and MM VIS-4 (to reduce nighttime lighting effects), both of which require review by the Architectural Review Committee, impacts to associated with aesthetics and visual resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Further discussion of these impacts and their determination can be found under Impact VIS-1 in Section 3.1, Aesthetics. Agriculture Implementation of the Project would result in the conversion of 14.0 acres of prime farmland soils and the overlapping 12.85 acres of prime farmland designated by the Department of Conservation to developed uses. To be consistent with the General Plan Objective Ag1 and related Policies Ag1-4, and Ag1-4.2, loss of these prime farmlands is considered a significant impact, and possible mitigation may include the permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1. The Project proposes dedication of a 9.79-acre parcel of prime farmland soils into an agricultural conservation easement to mitigate the loss of prime farmland soils for Subarea 2. On July 28, 2015, the City Council adopted the resolution determining that the offsite agricultural parcel constitutes as appropriate mitigation for the conversion of prime farmland in Subarea 2 (City of Arroyo Grande 2015). Mitigation of the loss of 1.74 acres of prime farmland soils on Subarea 3 would be required to be consistent with Policy Ag1-4.2, and the City Council must determine if the inclusion of 0.38 acres of orchards and cultural buildings is sufficient to count towards agricultural mitigation. While Subarea 1 contains prime agricultural soils, 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-7 Final EIR development of the subarea would not result in any significant impacts to agricultural resources as the subarea is not zoned for agriculture, and the subarea has been planned for development by the City. Therefore, development of Subarea 1 does not require mitigation for the loss of these prime farmland soils. Further discussion of these impacts and their determination can be found under the discussion of Impact AG-1 in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources. With the implementation of MM AG-2a addressed under Impact AG-2, impacts associated with the conversion of prime farmland soils to nonagricultural uses would be less than significant with mitigation. Hazards The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with Safety Element Policies S3 and S3-1. These policies set standards for new developments to address potential threats from fire on the proposed Project. The Project would be developed adjacent to a hillside; this proximity presents a potential wildland fire threat to the site. Aside from the stub of the residential road being left for the connection to future developments, the Project does not currently provide any additional access to the adjacent hillside for firefighters in the event of a wildland fire, and firefighters may need to access the slope from the St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church property. The proposed Subarea 2 residential development is located along the site’s southern boundary adjacent to this hillside. In the event of a wildland fire, development at the site would put these structures at risk of fire damage. With implementation of mitigation measures MM HAZ-3a-e, which provide requirements for an Applicant prepared Wildfire Emergency Management Plan, implementation of smoke detectors and emergency evacuation plans, use of fire resistant building material, and fire resistant plant selections, impacts associated with risk to wildland fires would be less than significant with mitigation. Potential inconsistencies with General Plan Safety Element policies regarding the protection of public views, provision of recreational facilities, and threats to developments by wildland fires would present potentially significant impacts. However, with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures described above, policy consistency- related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Recreation Development on the Project site would result in potentially significant impacts to recreational resources, specifically, because of the requirement that park and recreation facilities be provided at a ratio of four (4) acres per 1,000 individuals, established by Policy 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR PR1 of the General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element. The Project would result in an increase to City population by approximately 140 individuals from the development of 58 residential units on Subarea 2 of the Project site. To be consistent with the General Plan, the Project would require the provision of 0.56 acres of park and recreation facilities, but the Project proposes the development of 0.35 acres of qualifying parkland on the Subarea 2 site. This may result in an unmet need for parks facilities based to the General Plan requirement. As discussed in Section 3.9, Recreation, implementation of MM REC-1a, which requires dedication of additional useable public recreation area (e.g., enlargement of existing proposed park lot, provision of a needed trail connection) and/or payment of a park development impact fee for the acreage shortfall could offset this potential impact to be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures MM VIS-1a, MM VIS-4a, MM AG-1a, MM HAZ-4a–e, and MM REC-1a would apply. Residual Impacts With the implementation of proposed mitigation measures regarding potential impacts to agricultural resources, public views, recreational resources, and wildland fire hazards, impacts to these issues would be less than significant. 3.7.5 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with other pending/future projects listed in Table 3.0-1, would increase the number of new housing units and office developments. The proposed Project, in combination with pending/future developments, is consistent with the City’s General Plan and supports planned orderly growth in the City. All pending/future projects would be required to adhere to General Plan policies and other applicable City regulations, including those related to retaining the small town character of the City, improving the pedestrian and cyclist environment, and promoting a healthy and unified community environment. Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use caused by the development of the proposed Project, in combination with other pending/future projects, would be less than significant. 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-9 Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies Related Policies Consistency Analysis General Plan – Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Ag1 – Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve nonprime Agriculture use and natural resource lands. Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) – The Project would result in the development of prime farmland and is required to mitigate this loss through the creation of prime farmland at a ratio of 1:1. The Project site consists of 14.0 acres of prime farmland soils and 12.85 acres of prime farmland designated by the Department of Conservation. While the majority of the 15.29-acre Project site was found to contain prime soils and prime farmland as designated under the FMMP, the estimated LESA score for the entire site was found to be 66.42 (see Appendix D for complete LESA Model worksheets). Therefore, while the Project would result in a loss of agricultural resources, impacts are considered less than significant with specific Subarea mitigations as further described below. As Subarea 1 is currently a nonagricultural zoning district and development of onsite prime soils would result in a less than significant impact and remain consistent with this policy. A 9.79-acre property located at 1189 Flora Road is proposed for the mitigation of the development of Subarea 2 prime agricultural soils (10.1 acres). The City Council found this property suitable for the mitigation of Subarea 2. Development of Subarea 3 would result in conversion of agricultural zoned lands to a Village Mixed-Use zoning district, requiring mitigation of the loss of prime soils under this policy to be consistent with City standards and regulations. Implementation of mitigation measure MM AG-2a1, which address the mitigation of the loss of Subarea 3 prime farmland soils, would result in a less than significant impact to prime farmland soils. Refer to Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources. Ag1-4 – Establish a criterion that considers loss of prime farmland soils as significant environmental impacts. Potentially Consistent – The Project would result in the loss of prime farmland and the impacts associated with their loss are considered a significant environmental impact unless feasible mitigation is proposed that addresses the loss of onsite prime farmland soils. Refer to Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources. Ag1-4.2 – Possible mitigation for the loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 and up to 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may involve, but is not limited to, dedication of a perpetual Potentially Consistent – Refer to Ag1 discussion. 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis agriculture or conservation easement or other effective mechanism to ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of location shall be determined by the City Council. The aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and continuous to City boundaries, secondly within the Urban Land Use Element area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley within the Area of Environmental Concern. Other potential mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City Council. Ag1-5.3.1 – Assure that urban developments incorporate adequate runoff and drainage detention and flood control. Consistent – The proposed Project would incorporate new stormwater systems for the conveyance of on and offsite runoff and stormwater flows expected of a 100- year storm. Refer to Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality. Ag2 – Allocate and conserve ground and surface water resources for agricultural use and minimize potential Fringe Area and Urban development that would divert such resources for agriculture. Consistent – Subarea 3 of the Project site seeks to supplement water use through the connection of an existing groundwater well for the use of landscape irrigation. The use of groundwater for supplemental irrigation on Subarea 3 would not result in significant impacts to groundwater, and impacts associated with such activities would be less than significant. Refer to Impact HYD-2 in Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality. C/OS1-1 – Identify and protect scenic resources and view sheds associated with them. Potentially Consistent – The proposed Project would obstruct views of natural hillsides and the Santa Lucia Mountains, which are considered scenic resources consistent with Policy C/OS1-1.1. Development of the Project would result in changes to the onsite visual character which are consistent with the visual character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, development of the three subareas is subject to review by City staff and the Architectural Review Committee, as well as MM VIS-1, to ensure that the Project complies with the City’s applicable design guidelines and that the Project would result in minimal impacts to visual resources. Refer to Impact VIS-1 in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. C/OS2-1.2 – Preserve stream and riparian corridors in their natural state, except where necessary for flood control, periodic maintenance, creek bank protection, and creek restoration consistent with State and Federal permits. Concrete channel and Potentially Consistent – The drainage ditch along the southern edge of the Project is vegetated by a variety of riparian plant species, and is considered a riparian habitat. Development under the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts to stream and riparian corridors with construction of onsite flood 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-11 Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis underground piping of creeks and drainages shall be minimized and allowed if it is determined by the City Council to be necessary for public health, safety and welfare. Bridges are preferred over arched or piped culverts. improvement systems including a drainage system which supports riparian vegetation. Implementation of MM BIO-1a, which addresses impacts to habitat created by the drainage ditch, would result in impacts, which are considered less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Section 3.4, Biological Resources. C/OS2-1.3 – Where feasible, maintain a development setback of 25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending on slope, habitat and floodplain characteristics. Locate development outside the setback. Potentially Consistent – Refer to C/OS2-1.2 discussion. C/OS2-1.6 – Plan, design, and develop sites to protect natural resources and further the restoration of degraded habitats. Potentially Consistent – Refer to C/OS2-1.2 discussion. C/OS2-4.2 – Developments shall avoid the disturbance of significant wildlife corridors and/or wetlands. Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) – The drainage ditch along the southern edge of the Project site is not considered a federally protected wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and is verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulatory staff (Appendix F). Subarea 3 of the Project site consists of oak trees and other ruderal vegetation which provides habitat for migratory birds. Impact BIO-2 addresses potential impacts associated with development of Subarea 3 and construction activities which may disturb migratory bird habitat, and the implementation of MM BIO-2a would result in impacts that are less than significant, and therefore the Project would be consistent with this policy. Refer to Section 3.4, Biological Resources. General Plan – Circulation Element CT2 – Attain and maintain Level of Service (LOS) ‘C’ or better on all streets and controlled intersections. Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) – The proposed Project would increase traffic along roadways within the region. The project’s Transportation Impact Analysis found that Project-related impacts to local intersections and roadways would be significant, and require mitigation. Implementation of the Project would result in reduced LOS at two of the studied intersection. Project generated traffic would present a significant and unavoidable impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street. Proposed mitigation of the impacts are summarized in mitigation measures MM TRANS-3a and MM TRANS-3b and include the installment of traffic signals and payment of a development impact fee to the City. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project would be consistent with Policy CT2 of the General Plan. These impacts and potential mitigation 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis measures are further discussed in Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. 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. Potentially Consistent – Refer to CT2 discussion. CT2-3 – Require that General Plan Amendments, Rezoning Applications or development projects involving 20 or more estimated peak hour trip additions provide traffic studies according to City LOS policy, including subsequent amendments and refinements. Potentially Consistent – The proposed Project would generate more than 20 peak hour trips, so a Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix K) has been prepared, which assess potential impacts associated with Project trip generation and suggests potential mitigation of those impacts. Refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. CT3 – Maintain and improve existing “multi- modal” circulation and transportation systems and facilities, to maximize alternatives to new street and highway construction. Consistent – Improvements along East Cherry Avenue and potential implementation of mitigation measures to existing intersections would result in overall improvements to circulation networks. These improvements offer new opportunities to present alternative modes of transportation improvements throughout the City. Refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. CT3-3 – Promote non-motorized bike and pedestrian circulation facilities to serve all areas of the City and linking regional systems, with priority coordination with school, park, transit and major public facilities. Consistent – Implementation of the Project would result in improvements along East Cherry Avenue, including the construction of bikeways and pedestrian paths along East Cherry Avenue and interior residential collector roads. These improvements aim to follow the goals set by the Bike & Trail Master Plan for a more connected system of pedestrian circulation facilities. Refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. CT4 – Ensure compatibility and complementary relationships between the circulation/transportation system and existing and planned land uses, promoting environmental objectives such as safe and un- congested neighborhoods, energy conservation, reduction of air and noise pollution, transit, bike and pedestrian friendly characteristics. Potentially Consistent – As discussed under Impact TRANS-7 of Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed Project would result in demand for transit services. To remain consistent with this policy, mitigation measure MM AQ-5a requires that the Applicants coordinate with the City and Transit services to determine if there is an appropriate location to establish a transit stop which can service the Project. General Plan – Parks and Recreation Element PR1 – Neighborhood and community park facilities, including the sports complex, Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) – Implementation of the proposed Project would result in an estimated increase to population by 140 persons, requiring the provision of 0.56 acres of parkland. 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-13 Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis should be provided at a ratio of four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Currently, the project will construct 0.35 acres of parkland on the Subarea 2 lot. This results in a need for additional parkland, but the project does include the provision of additional recreational facilities. Proposed mitigation measure MM REC-1a would ensure the adequate mitigation of this deficit via the payment of in lieu fees to the City, or the further dedication of additional parklands and recreational facilities, and the Project would remain consistent with General Plan Policy PR1. For further discussion, refer to Impact REC-1 in Section 3.9, Recreation. PR1-1 – Neighborhood parks serve as the day-to-day recreational areas of the City, and should include such amenities as playgrounds, playfields, and areas for passive recreation. Consistent – The Project includes the development of 0.35 acres of parkland which will provide both active and passive areas for recreation including playgrounds, park seating, pathways, bikeways, and benches. Refer to Section 3.9, Recreation. PR4 – A network of trail, bicycle lanes and bikeways should be established for use by local residents and visitors to the Arroyo Grande Valley. Consistent – Project improvements to East Cherry Avenue will include development of a bikeway that provides both residents and visitors (including visitors of Subarea 1) opportunities recreate on these bikeways. Additional opportunities may be explored to enhance connection with the existing bikeway system as provided in MM REC-1a consistent with this policy intent and the goals of the Bicycle & Trails Master Plan. The provision of both bikeway improvements is therefore consistent with the intent of this policy. Refer to Section 3.9, Recreation. PR4-1.3 – Proposed trails, especially bicycle lanes which serve as connections to school and recreation facilities, shall be given high priority in implementation. Consistent – The proposed Class II bikeways along East Cherry Avenue Flora Road would strengthen the bicycle and trail connections throughout the City of Arroyo Grande. This connection would provide residents of the southeastern areas of the City with bicycle route connections to the urban/rural fringe areas of the City. Refer to Section 3.9, Recreation. General Plan – Land Use Element LU2-4.1 – Allow a maximum density of 4.5 du/acre within the SR-MD designation, and encourage neo-traditional or modern subdivision depending on the character of adjoining existing development. Potentially Consistent – Subarea 2 of the proposed Project will include the development of 58 medium density single family units on 11.74 acres of property. City standards restrict residential development to a limit of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), allowing a total of 52.83 units on the 11.74 acres. Proposed development of residential units is above this limit. However, Policy LU2-4.1 of the City General Plan allows for a 10 percent increase in allowable residential development per acre. As Project Design Guidelines (Appendix M) state that Subarea 2 development will be of superior design, maximum allowable dwelling units per acre would increase to 58.11 units, and proposed 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis development of 58 units would be consistent with this policy. The City may determine that the Project merits the density bonus based upon a determination of superior design. LU2-4.2 – The Development Code may provide for alternative developments standards, and increased density (maximum of 10%) in all SFR districts where superior neo-traditional subdivision design is proposed. Consistent – The Specific Plan would require that all housing units for Subarea 2 be consistent with the Development Code standards for superior neo- traditional design. Compliance with the Development Code would allow a 10 percent density increase on Subarea 2 to permit development of 58 SFR units. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. LU9 – Provide for appropriate maintenance, development and placement of Community Facilities (CF) relative to existing planned land uses. Consistent – The proposed Project would amend existing land use designations and zoning to allow residential development. Currently, no Community Facilities exist on site; however, the Project includes dedication and improvement of a public-neighborhood park. Development of the Project would result in the creation of facilities consistent with newly proposed land uses. LU9-4 – Ensure that new developments provide opportunities for recreation that are commensurate with the level and type of development. Ensure that recreational uses are compatible with surrounding uses and with sensitive resources that may be present. Potentially Consistent – The Project would consist of the development of a hotel, restaurant, and residential and mixed use villages, and will provide recreational resources such as a neighborhood park and community gardens. Development of these resources are compatible with surrounding uses and are considerate of any sensitive resources 1 that may be present. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. LU11-1 – Require that new developments be at an appropriate density or intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses. Consistent – The proposed density of the new residential development is consistent with the single family residential medium density land uses located north and south of the site. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. LU11-1.4 – Restrict new urban single family, multiple family, and mobile home uses to infill areas adjacent to existing developments of similar density. Consistent – The proposed Project will result in the development of medium density single family residences and independent senior living units in an area surrounded by such land uses at similar densities. The proposed new residential lots within Subarea 2 are of similar density to the existing single family residential developments north of the site. The provision of senior housing on Subarea 3 addresses a special housing need consistent with the Housing Element and would be in keeping variable densities that occur proximate to the site including the mobile home park to the west. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. 1 Sensitive resources include, but are not limited to: Sensitive receptors (e.g., residential areas, places of worship, schools, etc.), biological corridors, and sensitive habitats. 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-15 Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis LU11-2 – Require that new developments should be designated to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. Consistent – The Project seeks to maintain the small town characteristics of the City. Compliance with the Specific Plan development standards and design review requirements of the City will ensure that the project design provides a compatible transition with surrounding development. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. LU11-2.4 – Require that new developments be designed so as to respect the views from existing developments; provide view corridors which are oriented toward existing or proposed community amenities, such as a park, open space, or natural features. Potentially Consistent – Development of the Project would result in the obstruction of views from the residencies along East Cherry Avenue of the natural hillside located south of the Project site. However, the Project proposes development of single- and two-story buildings, up to a maximum height of 30 feet in the Subarea 2 development to limit obstruction of views. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. LU12 – Protect components of ‘rural setting’ and ‘small town character.’ Consistent – The Project site is located in the southeastern urban fringe areas of the City close to rural settings. Closest to U.S. Highway 101, the Project consists of development of a hotel and restaurant to serve existing residents and visitors, while transitioning to development of single family medium density housing and mixed uses compatible in design with surrounding land uses and in keeping with the City’s small town character. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. LU12-1 – Recognize agriculture, natural hillsides, clean air quality and linear open spaces along Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho creeks as valuable components of the City’s rural setting and essential elements worthy of conservation and preservation. Consistent – Development of the Project would result in the conversion of prime farmland currently zoned for agriculture. However, the Project proposes to dedicate a conservation easement of prime farmland adjacent to the southern banks of Arroyo Grande Creek, which would ensure long term conservation of Subarea 2 prime farmland soils, as well as the conservation of open space adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek. The conservation of this land would be consistent with this policy, as well as with Policy Ag1.Refer to Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources. LU12-3.5 – Require the provision of open space and recreational areas within the urban residential portions of the City. Potentially Consistent – Refer to PR1 discussion. LU12-6 – Require that residential street design be sensitive to existing landforms and minimize traffic volumes on local residential streets. Potentially Consistent – The proposed Project includes the development of residential streets and a residential alley way within Subarea 2 to connect with East Cherry Avenue. The Project also includes improvements to East Cherry Avenue to accommodate additional traffic volumes along the roadway. Impacts to the residential streets of Subarea 2 are discussed under Impact TRANS-5 of Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, and implementation of the recommended condition of 3.7 LAND USE 3.7-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis approval MM TRANS-5a would result in General Plan consistency with the Project. LU12-8 – Emphasize the incorporation of landscape themes and extensive landscaped areas into new development. Consistent – Project development would include landscaped areas along East Cherry Avenue, throughout the Subarea 2 residential development, and extensive landscape design for the Subarea 3 development. Landscape design and considerations are assessed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. LU12-9 – Encourage the provisions of custom homes or homes that simulate rural, small town, custom home atmosphere. Consistent – The East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines includes design standards and architectural guidelines for the single family residential component of the Specific Plan. Proposed design of the Project seeks to achieve compatibility with existing residential units and encourage a friendly and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Several home designs are proposed for the development that incorporate architectural elements (e.g., board and batten siding, color tones, maximum two-story tall residences, etc.) and details of a small town atmosphere. LU12-14 – Consider refinement to outdoor lighting design, height, placement and intensity level to minimize disruption of light sources to adjacent properties or public spaces. Consistent – Lighting for the Project would be designed to comply with City Development Code Chapter 6.48.090 and the International Dark-Sky Association/Illuminating Engineers Society Model Lighting Ordinance. Such features are designed to minimize spillover light onto adjacent properties while addressing security and energy efficiency needs. Refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. General Plan – Safety Element S2-1 – Strictly enforce flood hazard regulations both current and revised. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and other requirements for the placement of structures in flood plains shall be followed. Maintain standards for development in flood-prone and poorly drained areas. Consistent – The Project is not located within or adjacent to designated flood plains and conforms to regulations established to minimize the risk of flooding or flood hazards. Additionally, the Project would not result in the creation or worsening of known flood or drainage problems. New drainage facilities are proposed for the Project site which are designed to withstand runoff and stormwater flows in the event of a 100-year storm. Refer to Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality. S2-1.1 – Discourage development, particularly critical facilities, in areas of high flood potential. Do not allow development within areas designated as the 100-year flood plain that would obstruct flood flow or be subject to flood damage. Do not allow development which will create or worsen known flood or drainage problems. Consistent – Refer to S2-1 discussion. S2-1.3 – Review development plans for construction of structures in low-lying areas, Consistent – Refer to S2-1 discussion. 3.7 LAND USE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.7-17 Final EIR Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued) Related Policies Consistency Analysis or any area which may pose a serious drainage or flooding condition. Susceptibility to damage from flooding should be determined based on the 100-year flood. S3 – Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire. Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) – Onsite fire and emergency vehicle access would be provided to serve the Project consistent with City requirements. The development would be located adjacent to a hillside which presents to potential risk of wildland fire to the site. However, mitigation measures MM HAZ-3a-e address the mitigation of potential threats caused by fire including requirements for an Applicant prepared Wildfire Emergency Management Plan, implementation of smoke detectors and emergency evacuation plans, use of fire resistant building material, and fire resistant plant selections. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project would remain consistent with Policy S3 of the General Plan, and would impacts associated with threats of wildland fire would be less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Impact HAZ-4 in Section 3.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. S3-1 – New development should be designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards, with special attention given to fuel management, adequate water supply for suppression and improved access to higher fire risk areas. Potentially Consistent – Refer to S3 discussion. S4-6.1 – For developments in areas of known slope instability, landslides, or slopes steeper than 20 percent, the stability of slopes shall be addressed by registered professionals practicing in their respective fields of expertise. For subdivisions, such studies should be performed prior to delineating lot lines and building envelopes. Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) – The Project would develop an infill site located adjacent to the foot of a natural slope along the site’s southern boundary. An Applicant prepared Numerical Slope Stability Evaluation (Appendix L) was conducted for the adjacent slope to determine the risk of mud flows to the Project site. The report concluded that the slope adjacent to the site is stable, but the slope may be affected by periods of prolonged saturation or severe erosion due to poor surface drainage. Impact HYD-3 provides mitigation measures (MM HYD-3a-c) which address alteration to onsite surface drainage and promote the use of BMPs such that onsite stormwater facilities adequately convey onsite and offsite stormwater. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed Project would be consistent with City General Plan Policy S4-6.1. Refer to Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality. 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-1 Final EIR 3.8 NOISE This section addresses the noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and development under the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes the quality of the environment. Noise is usually measured as sound level on a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. 3.8.1 Environmental Setting 3.8.1.1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Noise Prolonged exposure to high levels of noise is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, communication interference, sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. The noise environment typically includes background noise generated from both near and distant noise sources as well as the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to continuous noise from sources such as traffic on a major road. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB and given that the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale that compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more useable range of numbers in a manner similar to the way that the Richter scale is used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, studies have indicated that a noise level increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to most people, a 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA to 100. Examples of various sound levels in different environments are shown in Table 3.8-1. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.8-1. Representative Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities Power Saw —110— Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 100 feet Crying Baby Subway —100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet Rail Transit Horn/ Tractor —90— Jack Hammer Food Blender at 3 feet Rail Transit At-grade (50 mph) —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Rail Transit in Station/ Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— Sewing Machine Air Conditioner Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room Refrigerator Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —30— Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) —20— Broadcast/Recording Studio —10— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: California Department of Transportation 1998. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider the effect of noise upon people largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Each noise rating scale applicable to this analysis is defined as follows: 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-3 Final EIR •Leq (equivalent energy noise level) is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night. •CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. •Ldn (day-night average noise level) is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA Ldn. •Lmin (minimum instantaneous noise level) is the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. •Lmax (maximum instantaneous noise level) is the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Noise levels from a particular source decline (attenuate) as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or shielding by buildings or other structures, intensify or reduce the noise level at a location. A common method for estimating roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., mostly asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., contains normal earth or vegetation, such as grass). Noise from stationary or point sources (including construction noise) is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. Generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm can reduce noise levels by up to 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior noise reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or more. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Groundborne Vibration Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible vibration, rattling of items such as windows or dishes on shelves, or a rumble noise. The rumble is the noise radiated from the motion of the room surfaces. In essence, the room surfaces act like a giant loudspeaker causing what is called groundborne noise. Groundborne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. Although the motion of the ground may be perceived, without the effects associated with the shaking of a building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction. In addition, the rumble noise that usually accompanies the building vibration is perceptible only inside buildings. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second; in the U.S., this is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB) (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest for groundborne vibration is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a). General human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels are described in Table 3.8-2. Roads near the Project site experience noise- producing traffic from adjacent residential areas to and from arterial roadways. 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-5 Final EIR Table 3.8-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration Vibration Velocity Level Human Response 65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many humans. 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit vibration at this level annoying. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Source: (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a), 3.8.1.2 Existing Noise Environment The Project site is located adjacent to a low density single family neighborhood, on the semi-rural edge of the City. The predominant source of noise comes from vehicular traffic on adjacent or nearby roads. The Project vicinity generally experiences low noise levels. Noise in this area is characteristic of quiet suburban neighborhoods that typically experience noise between 46 and 52 dB CNEL (EPA 1974). Roadway noise is a function of traffic volume, vehicle fleet mix, and traffic speeds. High traffic volumes generate more noise than low volumes. A vehicle fleet mix with a high percentage of trucks is noisier than a mix composed of mostly passenger automobiles. These variables indicate that roads with high traffic volumes of mixed traffic traveling at high speeds are prime sources of roadway noise. Specifically, the principal contributors to the ambient noise environment at the Project site are traffic along Traffic Way adjacent to the site, and along the U.S. Highway 101, approximately 300 feet west of the Project site. Traffic along East Cherry Avenue also generates some traffic-related noise. The Project site may generate some minor noise levels associated with agricultural activities that occur within Subareas 1 and 2, such as tilling, planting, irrigation, and harvesting. 3.8.1.3 Sensitive Receptors Noise sensitive uses, or receptors, generally include single- and multi-family residences, schools, libraries, medical facilities, retirement/assisted living homes, health care facilities, and places of worship. Such uses can be sensitive to increases in both short- term and long-term noise due to a range of issues, such as sleep disturbance and disruption of conversations, lectures or sermons, or decreased attractiveness of exterior use areas, such as patios, backyards, or parks. Of particular concern is exposure of sensitive receptors to long-term elevated interior noise levels and sleep disturbance, which can be associated with health concerns. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR No sensitive land uses are currently within the Project site. Sensitive land uses in the Project vicinity include a residential neighborhood with single-family residences along East Cherry Avenue to the north, single family residences adjacent to the northeast and south, Vagabond Mobile Home Park adjacent to the southwest containing approximately 25 units, and the St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church located on the adjacent hillside property 200 feet to the southeast (see Figure 3.8-1). Figure 3.8-1. Noise Sensitive Receptors 3.8.2 Regulatory Setting 3.8.2.1 Federal Federal Transit Administration Criteria The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) developed methodology and significance criteria to evaluate noise vibration impacts from surface transportation modes (i.e., passenger cars, trucks, buses, and rail) in the Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a). For residential buildings, the 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-7 Final EIR noise and vibration threshold applicable to these projects is 64 dBA CNEL and 80 VdB, respectively. Federal Noise Control Act (1972) Public Law 92-574 regulates noise emissions from operation of all construction equipment and facilities; establishes noise emission standards for construction equipment and other categories of equipment; and provides standards for the testing, inspection, and monitoring of such equipment. This Act gives states and municipalities primary responsibility for noise control. 3.8.2.2 State State of California’s Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Element of the General Plan (1987) These guidelines reference land use compatibility standards for community noise environments as developed by the California Department of Health Services, Office of Noise Control. Sound levels up to 65 Ldn or CNEL are determined to be normally acceptable for multi-family residential land uses. Sound levels up to 70 dBA CNEL are normally acceptable for buildings containing professional offices or defined as business commercial. However, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is recommended when new residential development is proposed in areas where existing sound levels approach 70 dBA CNEL. 3.8.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan General Plan, Noise Element According to state law, a Noise Element is required in all City and County general plans. The City slightly modified land use compatibility standards recommended by the California Department of Health Services. The City’s maximum noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land use (specific to transportation noise sources) are shown inTable 3.8-3. Since residential land uses are considered noise-sensitive, there are recommended maximum noise exposure guidelines. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.8-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Transportation Noise Sources Outdoor Activity Areas ¹ Interior Spaces Land Use Ldn/CNEL, dB Ldn/CNEL, dB Lsq1/2 dB Residential 603 45 -- Transient Lodging 603 45 -- Hospitals, Nursing Homes 603 45 -- Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls -- -- 35 Churches, Meeting Halls, Office Buildings 603 -- 45 Restaurants4 603 45 -- Schools, Libraries, Museums, Preschools, Child Care Facilities -- -- 45 Playgrounds (including school playgrounds) 70 -- -- 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown. The exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3 Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of best-available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table. 4 Restaurants included with or without outdoor dining or entertainment and/or drive-up windows. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2001. Policy N1-2 – New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected future levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed 60 dB Ldn or CNEL (70 Ldn/CNEL for playgrounds and neighborhood parks) unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to or below the levels specified for given land use in Table 3.8-3. Policy N2 & 3-3 – New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted where the noise level due to existing stationary noise sources will exceed the noise level standards of Table 3.8-5 unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the development to reduce noise exposure to or below the levels specified in Table 3.8-4. The City’s Noise Element lists mitigation strategies in a descending order of desirability. If preferred strategies are not implemented, it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate through a detailed noise study that the more desirable approaches are either not effective or not practical, before considering other design criteria contained in the General Plan: 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-9 Final EIR Table 3.8-4. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Stationary Noise Sources Daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Nighttime2 (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) Hourly Leq, dB3 50 45 Maximum level, dB3 70 65 Maximum level, dB-Impulsive Noise4 65 60 1 As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures. Where the noise-sensitive land uses are parks or playgrounds, add ten (10) decibels to the noise level standards in this table. 2 “Applies only where the receiving land use operates or is occupied during the nighttime hours.” 3 Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response. 4 Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response. Source: (City of Arroyo Grande 2001). Table 3.8-5. Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Noise Levels in dBA Leq at 50 Feet Trucks 82–95 Cranes (moveable) 75–88 Cranes (derrick) 86–89 Vibrator 68–82 Saws 72–82 Generators 71–83 Compressors 75–87 Concrete Mixers 75–88 Concrete Pumps 81–85 Back Hoe 73–95 Tractor 77–98 Scraper/Grader 80–93 Paver 85–88 Note: Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 2013. Policy N5-1 – The City would consider the following mitigation measures appropriate where existing sound levels significantly impact noise-sensitive land uses, or where cumulative increases in sound levels resulting from new development significantly impact existing noise-sensitive land uses: a)Rerouting traffic onto streets that have low traffic volumes or onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses. b) Rerouting trucks onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR c)Constructing noise barriers. d)Lowering speed limits. e) Acoustical treatment of buildings. f)Programs to pay for noise mitigation such as low cost loans of noise-impacted property or establishment of developer fees. City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.16 - Noise The City’s Municipal Code (§9.16) specifies noise standards for various sources of noise, exceptions to noise standards, noise level measurement standards, and the penalties associated with the violation of any provisions of this chapter. Section 9.16.030(d) – Noise sources associated with construction, provided such activities do not take place before 7:00 AM or after 10:00 PM on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM on Saturday or Sunday. Section 9.16.030(e) – Noise sources associated with the routine maintenance of a residential, commercial, industrial, or public/quasi-public property provided that such maintenance activities take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM. Section 9.16.030(g) – Noise sources associated with work performed by the city or private or public utilities in the maintenance or modification of its facilities. Section 9.16.030(h) – Noise sources associated with the collection of waste or garbage from property devoted to other than residential uses. Section 9.16.060(a) – Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.16.040, when the intruding noise source is an air conditioning or refrigeration system or associated equipment installed prior to the effective date of this chapter, the exterior noise level as measured as provided in Section 9.16.070 shall not exceed fifty-five (55) dB, except where such equipment is exempt from the provisions of this chapter. The exterior noise level shall not exceed fifty (50) dB for such equipment installed or in use after one year after the effective date of this chapter. Section 9.16.060(b) – Waste and Garbage Collection Equipment. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.16.040, noise sources associated with the collection of waste or garbage from a residential use by persons authorized to engage in such activity, and who are operating truck-mounted loading or compacting equipment, shall not take place before 7:00 AM or after 7:00 PM, and the noise level created by such activities when 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-11 Final EIR measured at a distance of 50 feet in an open area shall not exceed the following standards: • 85 dB for equipment in use, purchased or leased within six months from the effective date of this chapter; • 80 dB for the equipment set forth above after five years from the effective date of this chapter; • 80 dB for new equipment purchased or leased after six months from the effective date of this chapter; • 75 dB for new equipment purchased or leased after 36 months from the effective date of this chapter. 3.8.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.8.3.1 Thresholds of Significance Sound levels for the Project must comply with relevant noise policies, standards, and ordinances. Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines provides a set of screening questions that address impacts related to noise. Specifically, the Guidelines state that a proposed project would have a significant adverse impact related to noise if: a) The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; b) The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; c) The project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; d) The project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. In addition to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance, the City considers exceedance of a 3dB increase (a perceptible change) along roadways and/or the City’s Noise Element defined maximum decibels for both outdoor and indoor residential uses (see preceding Tables 3.8-3 and 3.8-4) as a potential significant noise impact. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.8.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology Construction Noise Anticipated construction sound levels were estimated and analyzed based on projected construction vehicle requirements, distance between sensitive receptors and construction activities, and proposed daytime operational levels. Standard noise generation levels for typical construction equipment were used to estimate construction sound levels. Noise levels were estimated using data published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding the noise-generating characteristics of typical construction activities (see Table 3.8-5). These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site, at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance as equipment is generally stationary or confined to specific areas during construction. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 74 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. The noise levels from construction at the offsite sensitive uses can be determined with the following equation from the High-Speed Ground Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Leq at sensitive use= Leq at 50 feet – 20 Log(D/50) Leq = noise level of noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the receiver, and Leq at 50 feet = noise level of source at 50 feet (U.S. Department of Transportation 2012). Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Equipment Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the City were estimated using the 2013 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Potential vibration levels are identified for on and offsite locations that are sensitive to vibration, including nearby residences. Caltrans provides thresholds of significance for vibration and methodology for calculating vibration levels at distances from generation. Table 3.8-6 indicates vibration levels at which humans would be affected by vibration levels. Table 3.8-7 identifies anticipated vibration velocity levels in inches per second (in/sec) for standard types of construction equipment based on distance from the receptor. Vibration impacts are assessed by estimating the vibration levels of Project construction equipment and the distance of sensitive receptors to the site boundary. 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-13 Final EIR Table 3.8-6. Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Human Response Condition Maximum Vibration Level (in/sec) for Transient Sources Maximum Vibration Level (in/sec) for Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 Source: Caltrans, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual – Table 20. Table 3.8-7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Vibration Level (in/sec) at 25 feet Vibration Level (in/sec) at 50 feet Vibration Level (in/sec) at 100 feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.035 0.017 Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0004 Source: Caltrans, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual – Table 18. Operational & Traffic Noise Noise generated from proposed Project stationary sources was estimated based on the typical dBA levels generated from urban uses, such as HVAC equipment, delivery trucks, and other common uses. Project-related roadway noise was considered in terms of traffic impacts related to existing conditions by the proposed Project. Daily operational noise levels generated by Project traffic was derived from the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Omni Means in 2015 (See Appendix K). Noise projections were derived based on calculations and percentage changes in evening peak hour traffic volumes using applications consistent with FHWA traffic noise modeling (FHWA 2014). 3.8.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts were analyzed for the existing and future noise environment, and appropriate noise-control mitigation measures are recommended below. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.8-8. Summary of Project Impacts Noise Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact NOI-1. Short-term construction activities would temporarily generate adverse noise and vibration levels that would exceed thresholds established in the City’s General Plan Noise Element. MM TRANS-1a MM NOI-1a MM NOI-1b Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact NOI-2. Long-term noise impacts from 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. None required Less than Significant Impact NOI-3. Long-term operational noise impacts associated with the Project from the operation of stationary equipment and site maintenance activities could result in the exceedance of thresholds in the City’s General Plan Noise Element. MM NOI-3a MM NOI-3b Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact NOI-1 Short-term construction activities would temporarily generate adverse noise and vibration levels that would exceed thresholds established in the City’s General Plan Noise Element (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Implementation of the Project would involve construction that could generate noise levels that exceed applicable standards for mobile construction equipment in the City’s Noise Standards and result in temporary substantial increases in noise levels primarily from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Construction activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other equipment that are sources of noise. Haul trucks using the local roadways would generate noise as they move along the road. Each stage of construction would involve various combinations of operating equipment, and noise levels would vary based on the amount and types of equipment and the location of the activity. Further, not all construction equipment would be operated simultaneously and peak sound levels associated with construction equipment would occur sporadically throughout the workday. Because estimated sound levels associated with construction activities would exceed the City’s threshold for noise exposure during construction, onsite and offsite short-term noise impacts would be potentially significant. 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-15 Final EIR Onsite The grading and site preparation phase of the Project would generate the highest construction sound levels because of the operation of heavy equipment; specifically, work associated with the construction of the proposed hotel and restaurant on Subarea 1, the 58 single-family residences on Subarea 2, and a community center building and 10- unit senior housing building on Subarea 3 would potentially generate the greatest noise levels for the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Peak sound levels associated with heavy equipment typically range between 75 and 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source (EPA 1971; refer to Table 3.8-5). No construction phasing of the Project has been determined at this time, but at the time of construction, each phase would be subject to permit review to ensure conformity with the approved Project Specific Plan and consistency with applicable regulations. Given that the noise-sensitive single-family residences adjacent to the north and south of the Project site, the Five Cities Swim School adjacent to the north, and the Vagabond Mobile Home Park adjacent to the southwest are located 50 feet or less from proposed construction activities, sound levels at these locations associated with construction activity have the potential to be slightly greater the estimated sound level ranges of construction equipment shown in Table 3.8-5 (exact noise levels of construction equipment is dependent on year, make, model, condition, and presence or absence of noise mufflers) and would exceed maximum sound level criteria (refer to Table 3.8-4). Anticipated sound levels at other noise-sensitive receptor locations at 200 feet of the Project site boundary (St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church approximately 200 feet to the southeast, single-family residences approximately 100 feet to the northeast) would also most likely exceed construction-related sound level criteria (refer to Table 3.8-4). These noise-sensitive receptors, at their maximum distance of 200 feet from the Project boundary, would experience construction-related sound levels approximately 6 to 12 dBA less than the estimated noise levels of the construction equipment (e.g., 63-83 dBA for trucks and backhoes instead of 75-95 dBA). Although construction activities could still potentially generate noise that would exceed City noise standards for residential use and cause periodic annoyance to nearby residents (see Table 3.8-9), under City municipal code 9.16.030(d), noise sources associated with construction are exempt from City noise standards, provided construction does not take place before 7:00 AM or after 10:00 PM on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM on Saturday or Sunday. 3.8 NOISE 3.8-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Maximum Leq noise levels anticipated to be experienced by these nearby sensitive uses due to Project construction activities are shown in Table 3.8-9. All distances are a conservative estimate and do not account for potential noise barriers due to vegetation or topography. Table 3.8-9. Estimated Outdoor Construction Peak Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors (Unmitigated) Residences to the North Along E. Cherry Ave Residences to the Northeast Along Launa Ln Residences to the South off of S. Traffic Way 5 Cities Swim School Vagabond Mobile Home Park St. Barnabus’ Episcopal Church Distance from construction 40 feet 20 feet 50 feet 40 feet 20 feet 200 feet Construction Noise (dBA Leq) 77-97 83-103 75-95 77-97 83-103 63-83 Note: Noise levels at sensitive uses were determined with the following equation from the High-Speed Ground Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Leq = Leq at distance (feet). – 20 Log(D/50), where Leq = noise level of noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the receiver, Leq at 50 feet = noise level of source at 50 feet. Noise levels have been rounded up to the nearest whole number. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 2012. Project construction could also increase exposure to vibration levels. Based on Caltrans vibration criteria in Table 3.8-6 and Table 3.8-7, sensitive receptors within 100 feet of the Project site would be subject to vibrations from construction equipment. Sensitive receptors within 25 feet of the Project site boundary would include those within the Vagabond Mobile Home Park and residences adjacent to Subarea 3 along Launa Lane. These sensitive receptors could experience periodic vibrations up to 0.089 in/sec. This would be distinctly perceptible. However, vibrations would be temporary and intermittent due to the nature of construction, and would only occur during the hours of construction in accordance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1a. Sensitive receptions located between 25 and 100 feet from the Project site may experience vibrations up to 0.035 in/sec. This would only be barely perceptible. Offsite Off-site construction vehicles would exceed maximum noise level criteria for mobile equipment (refer to Table 3.8-3). Sound levels associated with large haul trucks would have an approximate range of 75 to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. This sound level range would most likely exceed maximum allowable mobile source noise levels associated with sensitive-noise receptors located along construction truck routes in the 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-17 Final EIR vicinity of the Project site including East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. Implementation of the Construction Transportation Mitigation Plan would mitigate noise impacts associated with construction traffic. Due to the temporary nature of construction activities, these exceedances would be adverse in the short term. Overall, onsite and offsite construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM TRANS-1a would apply. MM NOI-1a For all construction activity at the Project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City’s Noise Standards. Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to: •Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment. •Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25. •All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers. •The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day). •Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses. MM NOI-1b The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the Project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Noise-related complaints shall be directed to the City’s Community Development Department. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction site entries. Signs shall be posted prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout construction. Construction plans shall note construction hours. At the pre- 3.8 NOISE 3.8-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR construction meeting all construction workers shall be briefed on restricted construction hour limitations. A workday schedule will be adhered to for the duration of construction. The Applicants shall designate the equipment area with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities. Construction plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction. All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on how, why, and where BMP measures are to be implemented. BMPs shall be identified and described for submittal to the City for review and approval prior to building or grading permit issuance. BMPs shall be adhered to for the duration of the Project. Construction plans shall include truck routes and shall be submitted to the City prior to permit issuance for each phase of development. Schedule and mailing list shall be submitted 10 days prior to initiation of any earth movement. Monitoring. The Applicants shall demonstrate that required signs are posted prior to grading/building permit issuance and pre-construction meeting. Building inspectors and permit compliance staff shall spot check and respond to complaints. The Applicants shall demonstrate that the acoustic shielding is in place prior to commencement of construction activities. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout construction. Permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform periodic site inspections to verify compliance with activity schedules. Residual Impact Some noise from construction activities associated with Impact NOI-1 would occur despite implementation of mitigation measures MM NOI-1a and NOI-1b. These residual noise impacts would be temporary and would occur within limited hours, and construction activities would avoid sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore residual impacts to Impact NOI-1 would be less than significant with mitigation. 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-19 Final EIR Impact NOI-2 Long-term noise impacts from 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 (Less than Significant). Implementation of the Project would increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels along major transportation routes. According to the TIA, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,646 average daily trips (ADT), including 132 AM peak hour trips and 157 PM peak hour trips (Omni Means 2015, see Appendix K). These Project-generated trips would be distributed throughout the Project vicinity across a number of intersections (see Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic for further detail). The additional daily trips on streets that are farther away from the Project site, such as Fair Oaks Avenue, East Branch Street, and West Branch would not cause a substantial increase in traffic-related noise to the Project site as these streets would experience less than eight percent increases in ADT. Traffic counts along Traffic Way would result in a 10 percent or less increase when comparing baseline to proposed scenarios (based on data provided in Appendix K), thus, according to the FHWA transportation noise model, sound levels would only increase by approximately 0.4 dBA (FHWA 2014), at 30 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Traffic counts along East Cherry Avenue would increase by 37 percent and would result in an associated noise level of +1.4 dBA (FHWA 2014). Changes in noise level of 3.0 dBA are considered just noticeably perceptible to the human ear (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a). Therefore, the increase of traffic-related noise of +1.4 dBA from nearby sensitive receptors would only be an incremental increase. Table 3.8-10. Estimated Noise Increases Attributed to Project Traffic Roadway Estimated Increase in PM Peak Hour Traffic Estimated Increase in Traffic Noise (dBA)1 Traffic Way 10% 0.4 East Cherry Avenue 37% 1.4 1 At 30 feet from centerline of roadway. Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a. Given this increase and sensitive receptors along the roadway, traffic sound levels of both existing and proposed Project were calculated. Calculation inputs included PM peak hour traffic along East Cherry Avenue (289), traffic fleet mix (98 percent automobiles and 2 3.8 NOISE 3.8-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR percent buses/large trucks), speed limit (35 miles per hour), distance from center line (30 feet), and vehicle reference constants as depicted in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Given that the PM Peak Hour counts are approximately 10% of the ADT and assuming that 24-hour Leq is equal to Peak PM hour Leq, which would overestimate traffic sound levels in non-peak PM hours, calculated noise levels from traffic along East Cherry Avenue would be 61.0 CNEL under existing conditions and 62.4 CNEL with implementation of the proposed Project, at approximately 30 feet from the roadway. This 1.4 CNEL increase along East Cherry Avenue would be indiscernible to the human ear (see Table 3.8-11). Table 3.8-11. Existing Noise, Estimated Noise, and Noise Increase Attributed to Project Traffic Roadway Estimated Existing Noise (CNEL)1 Estimated Noise under the Proposed Project2 Increased Noise under the Proposed Project (CNEL) East Cherry Avenue 61.0 62.4 1.4 1 At 30 feet from centerline of roadway. 2 Estimated noise at nearest sensitive receptors. Estimated existing noise levels associated with transportation along East Cherry Avenue currently exceeds the City’s Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources at Outdoor Activity Areas of 60 CNEL for sensitive receptors; however, as stated in Policy N1-2 of the Noise Element, where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB CNEL or less using a practical application of best- available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are below 45 CNEL. Typical reductions in noise levels from exterior to interior conditions for older construction style residences is approximately 22-25 dBA (City of San Luis Obispo 2003), thus the +1.4 dB CNEL increase associated with traffic along East Cherry Avenue would only incrementally increase interior noise levels and is anticipated to below the 45 dB CNEL interior noise threshold and would comply with the City’s Noise Element. Given that noise levels would remain below federal, state, and City (with exception) noise criteria, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-21 Final EIR Impact NOI-3 Long-term operational noise impacts associated with the Project from the operation of stationary equipment and site maintenance activities could result in the exceedance of thresholds in the City’s General Plan Noise Element (Less than Significant with Mitigation). Implementation of the Project could increase stationary source noise levels from new development, with potential to exceed the land use capability and stationary noise exposure standards in the existing Noise Element. Long-term operational noise impacts associated with the proposed Project would include maintenance and pickup/delivery activities, and noise-generating rooftop equipment such as air conditioners or kitchen ventilation systems. The residences and buildings on Subareas 2 and 3 would contribute some of these noise impacts, due to maintenance activities such as trash pick-up and landscaping, but most of these impacts would come from the proposed hotel and restaurant uses on Subarea 1. Noise levels from commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment can reach 100 dBA at a distance of three feet (EPA 1971); however, these units are typically fitted with noise shielding cabinets, placed on the roof or in mechanical equipment rooms to reduce noise levels. Noise from mechanical equipment associated with operation of the proposed Project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation. Therefore, with the application of these noise reduction techniques, noise from these pieces of equipment does not typically exceed 55 dBA at 50 feet, and would not exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior spaces threshold. As such, noise levels from HVAC systems would be below the interior and exterior ambient noise thresholds. Landscaping and maintenance activities may include the use of equipment such as noise-compliant leaf blowers or hedge trimmers, which would reach levels of 65 dBA at 50 feet, potentially exceeding the City’s 60 dBA outdoor activity areas threshold at the property line of the receiving land use. Landscaping and maintenance personnel perform maintenance and performance activities within daytime hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sound levels associated with diesel trucks and trash pickup activities generate noise levels of approximately 80 dB at 50 feet and could potentially exceed the City’s 60 dBA outdoor activity areas threshold (City of San Luis Obispo 2002). With the implementation of noise-reducing standard procedures and practices from the City’s Noise Element and the mitigation measures below, impacts related to the operation 3.8 NOISE 3.8-22 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR of stationary equipment and site maintenance activities would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure for All Subareas MM NOI-3a All noise-generating rooftop building equipment, such as air conditioners and kitchen ventilation systems, shall be installed away from existing and proposed noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) or be placed behind adequate noise barriers. Mitigation Measure for Subarea 1 MM NOI-3b The Applicant (SRK Hotels) shall submit a truck traffic plan to the City Public Works Department which will address timing, noise, location, and number of deliveries for each project component. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to ensure that impacts to noise-sensitive receptors are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant (SRK Hotels) shall ensure that all noise-generating mechanical equipment associated with operation of the proposed development complies with the California Building Standards Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation. The Applicant shall prepare a maintenance and truck plan to the City that addresses timing, noise, location, and number of deliveries for each project component, as well as ensuring that noise impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Monitoring. The Applicant (SRK Hotels) shall ensure that all noise- generating mechanical equipment is compliant prior to installation. The Applicant shall receive approval from the City before maintenance and truck activities begin. Building inspectors and permit compliance staff shall check before implementation. Residual Impact Residual impacts to Impact NOI-3 would be less than significant. 3.8.5 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would continue the existing development pattern in the southern portion of the City, which includes commercial uses along Traffic Way, 3.8 NOISE East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.8-23 Final EIR and residential uses away from major arterials. Development under the Project would temporarily generate significant adverse noise levels due to construction activities and would result in long-term operational noise impacts due to stationary equipment and site maintenance activities. Further, as shown in Table 3.8-10 and 3.8-11, the long-term increase in traffic related noise exposure near the Project site would be negligible along all areas roadways (up to 0.4 dBA) with the exception of East Cherry Avenue when comparing the Cumulative-No Project to the Cumulative-Project. East Cherry Avenue would experience a 1.2 CNEL increase when comparing the Cumulative-No Project (61.6 CNEL) to the Cumulative-Project (62.8 CNEL) at 30-feet from the roadway centerline (see Table 3.8-12). This increase would be indiscernible to the human ear and would remain below federal, state, county, and City (with exception) land use and noise criteria. Therefore, if the recommended project-specific mitigation measures are implemented, and all other projects are consistent with Noise Element requirements and conditions, the Project’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts is less than significant. Table 3.8-12. Existing Noise, Estimated Cumulative Noise, and Noise Increase Attributed to Project Traffic Roadway Estimated Existing Noise (CNEL)1 Estimated Noise under the Cumulative No Project (CNEL) Estimated Noise under the Cumulative Project2 Increased Noise under the Cumulative Project (CNEL) East Cherry Avenue 61.0 61.6 62.8 1.8 1 At 30 feet from centerline of roadway. 2 Estimated noise at nearest sensitive receptors. 3.9 RECREATION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.9-1 Final EIR 3.9 RECREATION This section analyzes the impacts of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) on existing parks and recreational uses within the City of Arroyo Grande (City). This section analyzes adverse and beneficial impacts on recreational resources, identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts, and determines residual impacts and cumulative effects upon recreational resources. The information in this section is based on the City’s General Plan as well as information developed during field reconnaissance by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) staff. It is also based on information from the City Public Works Department Streets & Landscaping Division. 3.9.1 Environmental Setting 3.9.1.1 Recreational Resources The Project site is located within the City of Arroyo Grande. There are 15 public or quasi- public recreational resources and open spaces within the vicinity of the Project site located within the City (Table 3.9-1). These recreational resources include over 147.9-acres of active parks, sports complexes, and passive open spaces managed and maintained by the City of Arroyo Grande with the Project vicinity. The City Recreational Services Department also maintains approximately 20.4 acres of non-useable landscape areas for a total of 168.34-acres of public lands in parks, landscaped areas, and open spaces (City of Arroyo Grande 2013). 3.9.1.2 Project Site The Project site is located within a predominantly residential neighborhood in the southeastern portion of the City limits. The Project site does not currently contain any recreational resources. Within the direct Project vicinity, the adjacent neighborhood to the east contains a small neighborhood park, with remaining City recreational facilities scattered to the north, east, and west. 3.9 RECREATION 3.9-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.9-1. Public Open Spaces and Recreational Resources # Recreation Facility Private Or Public Distance from Project (miles) Acreage Activities 1 Centennial Park and Gazebo Public 0.37 0.25 Creek-side picnics, eating areas, music events, the weekly Farmers’ Market, and other community events 2 Prospective Garden Private 1.65 - Community garden plots 3 Elm Street Park Public 1.55 5.0 Public barbeques, picnic tables, and playground 4 Hart-Collett Memorial Park Public 0.25 0.36 Picnic area 5 Health Fitness Park Public 0.81 0.51 Jogging trails and exercise stations 6 Heritage Square Park and Rotary Bandstand Public 0.29 2.12 Picnic tables and small barbeque grills 7 Howard Mankins Hoosegow Park Public 0.46 0.31 Historic resources 8 James Way Habitat and Wildlife Preserve Public 0.72 75.02 Equestrian trails, jogging/walking trails, and wildlife viewing 9 Kingo Park Public 1.87 0.8 Picnic tables, playground, and small barbeque grills 10 Kiwanis Park Public 0.35 3.30 Walking trails and picnic areas 11 Parkside Park Public 1.80 0.14 Basketball court, picnic tables, and a playground 12 Rancho Grande Park Public 1.20 8.0 Baseball/softball field, basketball court, horseshoe pits, barbeques, playground, and a soccer field 13 Soto Sports Complex Public 1.70 40.01 Baseball/softball diamond, football field, soccer field, and tennis courts 14 Strother Park Public 1.18 8.14 Baseball/softball field, basketball court, horseshoe pits, and barbeques 15 Terra De Oro Park Public 1.0 3.94 Playground Total Acreage +/- 147.9 Note: All distances are approximate. Source: (City of Arroyo Grande 2015; City of Arroyo Grande 2013) 3.9 RECREATION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.9-3 Final EIR 3.9.2 Regulatory Setting 3.9.2.1 Federal There are no federal regulations regarding public access or recreational resources applicable to the proposed Project. 3.9.2.2 State There are no state regulations regarding public access or recreational resources applicable to the proposed Project. 3.9.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 3.36.030 of the City Municipal Code establishes development impact fees which are imposed as a condition of approval upon all development projects for which a building permit is issued. These fees must be paid to the City at the time a building permit is issued, pursuant to §66007 of the California Government Code. A park improvement fee shall be required of subdivisions that do not provide a sufficient amount of park and recreation facilities pursuant to regulations established in Chapter 16.64.060 of the Municipal Code. These fees are intended to address the need of, or increased use of existing park and recreation facilities in the service area of a proposed residential development. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Recreational resources in the City are managed through the General Plan, including the Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element and the Parks and Recreation Element. The Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element designates recreational land uses, including open space, recreation, and public/quasi-public uses. The goal of Parks and Recreation Element is to adequately provide for the recreational needs of the City area residents and visitors. General Plan, Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element Goal LU9 – Provide for appropriate maintenance, development and placement of Community Facilities (CF) relative to existing planned land uses. Policy LU9-4 – Ensure that new developments provide opportunities for recreation that are commensurate with the level and type of development. Ensure 3.9 RECREATION 3.9-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR that recreational uses are compatible with surrounding uses and with sensitive resources that may be present. Policy LU12-3.5 – Require the provision of open space and recreation areas within the urban residential portions of the city. Within the rural residential portions of the planning area, emphasize the preservation of natural landforms and vegetation. General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element Goal PR1 – Neighborhood and community park facilities, including the sports complex, should be provided at a ratio of four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Policy PR1-1 – Neighborhood parks serve as the day-to-day recreational areas of the City, and should include such amenities as playgrounds, playfields, and areas for passive recreation. 3.9.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.9.3.1 Thresholds of Significance With respect to land use and planning, applicable sections of Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines state that a project would normally have a significant impact to recreation if it would: 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; or, b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. 3.9.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology Impacts to recreational resources within the Project vicinity are assessed through review of existing City standards and regulations, and available City resources. Recreational resource impacts associated with the Project are evaluated based on Goal PR1 of the Parks and Recreation Element, which calls for the ratio of four acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. 3.9.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section discusses the impacts to recreation from the proposed Project. Table 3.9-2 below provides a summary of the recreation impacts resulting from the proposed Project. 3.9 RECREATION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.9-5 Final EIR Table 3.9-2. Summary of Project Impacts Recreational Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact REC-1. The proposed Project would increase the use of and need for recreational facilities, resulting in potential increase physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities. MM REC-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact REC-2. The proposed Project includes the construction of recreational facilities which may have an adverse effect on the physical environment. None required Less than Significant Impact REC-1 The proposed Project would increase the use of and need for recreational facilities, resulting in potential increased physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities (Less than Significant with Mitigation). The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 16.64.040, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66477, establishes a development impact fee for improvements to park and recreation facilities to serve the needs of residents of the subdivision and the greater public residing in the City. In the event that a subdivision consists of more than 50 parcels, the Applicant is required to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for park and recreation facilities. Payment of these fees shall be required of the Applicant in the event that only a portion of required land is proposed for local park purposes. Pursuant to Section M of this chapter, Subarea 1 and Subarea 3 would remain exempt from such fees as their land uses do not propose residential subdivisions. Should their intended uses change, future proposed uses would be reviewed to ensure that park-related development impact fees are not required. The development of residential housing for Subarea 2 would create 58 single-family medium density residential dwellings, and would result in an increase in the City population by approximately 140 individuals. Based on City standards described in the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, the City requires four acres of parkland per every 1,000 individuals. To comply with this regulation, the estimated 140 new residents would require an additional 0.56 acres of parkland. The proposed Project includes the public dedication and development of a 0.35-acre public neighborhood park within Subarea 2, which would also serve as a stormwater drainage and storage facility. This park would 3.9 RECREATION 3.9-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR not fully address the park dedication requirement, since it would be 0.21 acres short of the required 0.56 acres. The site plan for Subarea 2 identifies a 0.21-acre area of land located along the northern residential interior street, directly in front of residential units. The applicant proposes to include this strip of land, in part, to address the required 0.56 acres of parkland. This 0.21- acre area of land would be 15-feet wide, extend approximately 580 feet, and include a meandering sidewalk. The linear open space abuts private residences and would appear to function more as a front yard then an effective public open space for recreational use given it would not be large enough to support active and passive recreational uses defined in Chapter 16.04.070 of the City Municipal Code. The Project site would result in potentially significant impacts to recreational resources, specifically, the provision of park and recreation facilities at a ratio of four (4) acres per 1,000 individuals, established by policy PR1 of the General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures which would require dedication of additional useable public recreation area and/or payment of parkland development impact fee for the acreage shortfall, this potential impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Subarea 2 Mitigation Measure MM REC-1a Development Impact Fees for Subarea 2. The Applicant for Subarea 2 (Mangano Homes, Inc.) shall pay a park improvement impact fee equal to the land value, plus twenty (20) percent of toward the cost of offsite improvement, for the additional 0.21 acres of parkland required to be dedicated pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 16.64.060 of the City Municipal Code. The value of this fee shall be based upon the fair market value of 0.21 acres, as determined by the formula provided in Section E of Municipal Code Chapter16.64.060, immediately prior to the filling of the final map. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, this requirement may be met by one of several alternative means that would result in additional dedication of lands for recreational use, such that Project suits the need for 0.56 acres of required parkland. Potential alternatives include the expansion of the existing proposed 0.35 neighborhood park to provide more adequate park space, implementation of trail connections from the property to proposed trails identified in the City Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, or the connection of the Project 3.9 RECREATION East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.9-7 Final EIR proposed Class I Bikeway located along the Project Residential Collector road with the City proposed bikeway along Trinity Avenue. Requirements and Timing. Price of in-lieu fees shall be determined by the City Council at the time of the final map approval. The payment of these in- lieu fees shall be made in their entirety prior to the issuance of any building permits and paid to the City Council and deposited in the parks development fund. Monitoring. The price and payment of in-lieu fees will be determined and approved by the City Council at the time of Project approval. Residual Impact With implementation of the above mitigation measure, impacts associated with the increased use of and need for park and recreation facilities would be less than significant. Impact REC-2 The proposed Project includes the construction of recreational facilities which may have an adverse effect on the physical environment (Less than Significant). The proposed Project includes the development of a 0.35-acre neighborhood park that would provide the day-to-day recreational needs of the residents of the new housing development on Subarea 2. This park would include amenities such as playgrounds, pathways, park benches, and BBQs. Construction would entail grading of the site, staging of construction equipment, cut and fill operations, over-excavation and compaction of soils, and other construction operations listed in Section 2.7.2.1 of the Project Description. The construction of the neighborhood park has the potential to result in construction-related impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. However, these impacts would be negligible due to the small size of the neighborhood park, implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs), and adherence to the City’s General Plan policies. Project construction impacts are further addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.8, Noise, and Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. Subarea 3 of the proposed Project would include recreational and open space opportunities through the creation of cultural, native, and farm gardens, educational classes, and native grass areas for play and gatherings. Currently, Subarea 3 recreational uses may be limited to members of the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA). 3.9 RECREATION 3.9-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Consequently, impacts to the physical environment associated with the construction of recreational facilities are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 3.9.5 Cumulative Impacts The Project would also contribute, in combination with other projects in the City of Arroyo Grande listed in Table 3.0-1, to increased recreational use of parklands and recreational facilities. Cumulative projects with the Project vicinity include a number of residential developments that have been approved or are currently under construction. Implementation of these projects, along with the proposed Project, could result in an incremental increased use of, and demand for, park and recreation facilities. The Parks and Recreation Element requires that neighborhood and community park facilities be provided at a ratio of four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The City maintains at least 147.9 acres of parkland; this is more than double the required 71.63 acres of parkland required to serve the current estimated City population of 17,908 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015) as well as the 80 acres of parkland need to support the projected City buildout population of 20,000 individuals. Other future and pending projects may require the acquisition of land for the development of parkland to comply with City standards. Should inadequate parklands be provided for these developments, individual developers would be subject to development impact fees in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 16.64.060. As the City currently provides a more than adequate amount of parkland and open space for the projected buildout of the City, cumulative impacts to parkland and recreation facilities within the Arroyo Grande area would be less than significant. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-1 Final EIR 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC This section was prepared based on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Omni Means for the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) (see Appendix K; Omni-Means 2015). The TIA contains detailed analyses of local traffic circulation issues, with particular attention to potential increases in congestion at major intersections along the area’s limited arterial system. The adequacy of pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities are also discussed as well as anticipated impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. The scope of the TIA was developed in consultation with City staff and conforms to standards for such analysis set forth in the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element. In particular, careful consideration was given to which intersections could be substantially affected by Project-generated traffic and the likely outer boundary of such impacted facilities. 3.10.1 Environmental Setting 3.10.1.1 Area Roadway Network Regional access to the City is provided via the U.S. Highway 101, and access in the Project vicinity is available via northbound and southbound ramps at Traffic Way, as well as a full interchange at East Grand Avenue. These two interchanges provide access to a limited arterial system which funnels traffic generated in this automobile-dependent area to a few key intersections. For orientation purposes, East Grand Avenue is considered an east-west arterial roadway, while U.S. Highway 101 and Traffic Way are considered north-south roadways (see Figure 3.10-1). Local access to the site is provided via Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. Key streets and highways which provide access to the Project site and vicinity are described below, while pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities along these roadways are described in Section 3.10.1.3, Alternative Transportation. Traffic Way is a two -to three-lane arterial roadway located immediately west of the Project site. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Figure 3.10-1. Existing Transportation Conditions • U.S. Highway 101, located west of the Project site, is a multi-lane interstate highway which extends through the City, south to Los Angeles, and north to San Francisco and beyond. Within the Project area, U.S. Highway 101 contains four lanes with a center median of 35 to 50 feet in width. Primary highway access to and from the site would be provided via on- and off-ramps at Traffic Way and the full interchange with an overapss at East Grand Avenue. • Traffic Way, located along the western boundary of the Project site, is a two- to three-lane roadway with a generally north-south alignment running parallel to U.S. Highway 101 from the southeastern City limit in the southeast region of the City, north to West Branch Street. Traffic Way would serve as the primary entrance road for the proposed restaurant and hotel on Subarea 1. Traffic Way serves as an arterial roadway. Traffic Way is a partial interchange at U.S. Highway 101, providing Highway 101 with both the southbound on-ramp and northbound off-ramp at an uncontrolled intersection 450 feet south of East Cherry Avenue; Traffic Way does not support an overpass linking areas of the City east and west of U.S. Highway 101. • East Cherry Avenue, located along the northern site boundary, runs east-west and perpendicular to Traffic Way. It is a two-lane road in the Project vicinity, with sidewalks developed only on the north side of the street opposite the Project site. East Cherry Avenue provides access to the residential communities located to the 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-3 Final EIR north and east of the Project site and would serve as the primary entrance road for the proposed residential development on Subarea 2. The intersection of East Cherry Avenue with Traffic Way is stop sign controlled only on Cherry Avenue, with uncontrolled traffic on Traffic Way. Cherry Avenue supports a southbound left turn lane onto Traffic Way. • South Traffic Way, the southern-most extent of Traffic Way, starts at the Traffic Way/U.S. Highway 101 on- and off-ramp. The four-lane South Traffic Way provides access to Vagabond Mobil Home Park, local churches, and the rural residential areas of southern Arroyo Grande. • Fair Oaks Avenue, a four-lane traveling east to west, begins just west of the Project site at Traffic Way and winds west through the City. Fair Oaks Avenue provides the quickest access to the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, Harloe Elementary School, and City parks from the Project site. • Bridge Street, a short two-lane side street, is north-/south-oriented and connects Traffic Way with the downtown area along West Branch Street. Bridge Street provides vehicular and pedestrian access to the two streets via a 140 foot long bridge over Arroyo Grande Creek. • East Branch Street, located 0.42 miles north of the Project site, is a two- to four- lane arterial that runs east to west. East Branch Street services the village center, providing traffic flow through the village core and shops, businesses, and residences located along Arroyo Grande Creek. High volumes of traffic along this road conflict with the community’s desire for a pedestrian-friendly downtown. • West Branch Street, a two-lane collector road running parallel to U.S. Highway 101, is located 0.60 miles north of the Project site. This road runs east/west from East Branch Street, to Oak Park Boulevard. It serves as a frontage road to local schools, residential streets, public facilities, and commercial retail. • East Grand Avenue, a four- to five-lane arterial, starts at the intersection of East Branch Street and West Branch Street, immediately east of U.S. Highway 101. The primary roadway west of U.S. Highway 101, East Grand Avenue continues west, through the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach before ending at the historic California State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway), adjacent to the beachfront. East Grand Avenue runs through the majority of industrial and commercial retail districts of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, connecting many communities and residential neighborhoods throughout the two cities. Circulation and traffic flow in the Project vicinity is constrained due to the limited number of north-south arterials parallel to U.S. Highway 101, which funnels traffic onto a limited number of major streets, and the non-standard design and spacing of some intersections. Intersection operation and congestion is discussed below. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.10.1.2 Traffic Operations at Intersections The following eight study intersections within the Project vicinity were evaluated for potential Project specific and cumulative impacts associated with potential increases in traffic congestion. In order to determine existing operational characteristics and levels of congestion, traffic counts were collected at each of these intersections (Appendix K): 1. Traffic Way/East Cherry Avenue 2. Traffic Way/ South Traffic Way 3. Traffic Way/Fair Oaks Avenue 4. Traffic Way/Bridge Street 5. Traffic Way/West Branch Street 6. East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street 7. East Grand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps 8. Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound ramp Because traffic flow on arterials is most constrained at intersections, detailed traffic flow analyses focus on operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods, which are typically the AM and PM peak hours. The quality of service offered by any roadway can be described by measuring its Level of Service (LOS), a qualitative method for describing operational conditions within a traffic stream or at an intersection, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. In rating intersection operations, LOS A through LOS F are used, where LOS A indicates free-flow operations and LOS F indicates congested operations (see Table 3.10-1). The Transportation Research Board (TRB) 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) is the standard used for evaluating all types of LOS (e.g., signalized, unsignalized, freeway intersections). The City considers LOS C as the minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections. Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS D at a minimum and plan improvement to achieve LOS C (City of Arroyo Grande 2001). 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-5 Final EIR Table 3.10-1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Description Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds) Signalized Unsignalized A Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle. ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle. 10.1 – 20 10.1 – 15 C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. 20.1 – 35 15.1 – 25 D Congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long-standing lines formed. 35.1 – 55 25.1 – 35 E Severe congestion with some long-standing lines on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. 55.1 – 80 35.1 – 50 F Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations. > 80 > 50 Source: TRB 2010. The LOS criteria for stop-sign-controlled intersections have different threshold values than those for signalized intersections primarily because drivers expect different levels of performance from different types of transportation facilities. A signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than a stop-sign-controlled intersection. Thus, a higher level of control-related delay is acceptable at a signalized intersection for the same LOS. LOS was calculated for the area intersections using the SYNCHRO 8 LOS analysis software program, which implements the HCM methodology. The methodology accounts for geometry, traffic controls, signal timing, and the mix of traffic using the facility, including autos, trucks, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. Existing traffic signal timing information was retrieved from the City and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and was then input into a model to accurately represent the existing conditions at the signalized intersections (see Table 3.10-2). 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.10-2. Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection Number Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle) LOS Delay (seconds per vehicle) LOS 1 S. Traffic Way/Traffic Way/U.S. 101 Ramps TWSC 11.9 B 10.8 B 2 E. Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way/ TWSC 14.6 B 19.7 C 3 Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way/ AWSC 34.6 D 26.9 D 4 Bridge Street/Traffic Way/ TWSC 19.3 C 15.1 C 5 W. Branch Street/Traffic Way/ Signal 29.2 C 25.4 C 6 E. Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street TWSC 56.1 F 116.6 F 7 E. Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal 18.9 B 10.1 B 8 Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. 101 SB Offramp/Orchard Avenue AWSC 38.4 E 17.8 C Note: TWSC = Two-Way Stop-Control; AWSC = All-Way Stop-Control Intersections in bold operate at an unacceptable LOS. Source: Omni-Means 2015 (see Appendix K). Based upon this analysis, a majority of existing signalized intersections in the Project area operate at acceptable free flowing conditions of LOS C or better. Three of the study intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hour periods. Those intersections operating at unacceptable LOS include Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way, East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street, Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp/Orchard Avenue. 3.10.1.3 Alternative Transportation Transit Services San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) operates bus service within the City of Arroyo Grande and throughout San Luis Obispo County. The South County Transit (SCT) provides bus services throughout the Five Cities region, servicing the City. SCT Routes 23 and 24 are fixed routes that service the City, with a bus stop approximately 0.29 miles away from the Project site, slightly further than the accepted ideal maximum walking distance of 0.25 miles for transit stops. SLORTA operates intercity bus service within San 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-7 Final EIR Luis Obispo County and to Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County. SLORTA also operates Runabout, the County-wide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transportation service, and Dial-A-Ride, an affordable curb-to-curb transportation service. Hours and operation and service frequencies for SCT and SLORTA routes in the Project vicinity are described in Table 3.10-3. SCT routes 23 and 24 provide service throughout the Five Cities area and stop in several locations around the Historic Village of the City. There is no direct transit service to the Project site, but the nearest transit stop is located approximately 0.30 miles north at Hart-Collett Memorial Park. This location provides transit stops for SCT Routes 23, 24, and 25. No SLORTA service stops are readily accessible to the Project site for pedestrian access. Although one transit stop that services several routes exists within approximately 0.30 miles of the site, transit service frequency (also known as headway) in the Project vicinity is infrequent, with the two key routes in the Project vicinity (Routes 23 and 24), operating at 60-minute headways (see Table 3.10-3). This low headway can lead to delays for transit- dependent individuals and may not make public transportation an attractive option for non- transit-dependent individuals. Ideal headways to make transit most useful to transit dependent households and attractive to non-transit dependent individuals are generally from 10 to 15 minutes during peak hours with transit stops within 0.25 miles. However, the auto-oriented, low-density nature of area land uses and the large-block, arterial-based street system present a challenge to improving transit service to the area. SLORTA Route 10 is the only regional transit route that stops in the general Project vicinity. SLORTA Route 10 travels north-south along the U.S. Highway 101 from the City of San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo County to the City of Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County. The bus makes minimal stops each way, and offers only one stop in the City on El Camino Real at Halcyon Road, approximately 1.0 mile from the Project site, well outside of the typically accepted ideal maximum walking distance of 0.25 miles. In addition to inner-city transit, Amtrak provides intercity rail and bus service at the station located at the Grover Beach Amtrak Station, approximately 3.0 miles west of the Project site. The station can be reached using local transit SCT Route 21, which has a bus stop at East Grand Avenue and West Branch Street, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the Project site. The Pacific Surfliner line operates two trains daily from the station to destinations south of San Luis Obispo. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.10-3. Existing Transit Services Route Service to Project Site Day of Week Service Span Headway (minutes) SCT 21 Pismo Beach Premium Outlets – Arroyo Grande – Grover Beach – Pismo Beach – Shell Beach – Pismo Beach Premium Outlets Mon – Fri Sat Sun 6:29 AM – 7:24 PM 7:29 PM – 7:24 PM 7:29 AM – 6:24 PM 60 60 60 23 Grover Beach – Oceano – Arroyo Grande – Grover Beach – Oceano – Grover Beach Mon – Fri Sat Sun 6:00 AM* – 10:40 PM 8:10 AM* – 6:05 PM 7:55 AM* – 6:21 PM 60 60 60 24 Pismo Beach Premium Outlets – Grover Beach – Arroyo Grande – Pismo Beach Premium Outlets Mon – Fri Sat Sun 6:29 AM – 7:25 PM 7:29 AM – 7:25 PM 7:29 AM – 6:25 PM 60 60 60 25AM Romona Garden – 13th at Menton – Hwy 1 at Pershing – Wilmar at 19th – Arroyo Grande High Mon Tues - Fri 8:45 AM – 9:15 AM 7:03 AM – 7:30 AM - - 25PM Arroyo Grande High – Halcyon Park and Ride – Oceano Lagoon – Ramona Garden Park Mon - Fri 3:03 PM – 3:40 PM - SLORTA 10 San Luis Obispo – Pismo Beach – Arroyo Grande – Nipomo – Santa Maria Mon – Fri Sat Sun 5:45 AM – 9:43 PM 7:14 AM – 8:43 PM 8:14 AM – 6:43 PM 60 180 240 Notes: * On the first trip of the day, SCT 23 service starts at Oak Park Blvd at Longbranch Ave at 5:55 AM. All other SCT 23 trips depart Romano Garden Park at :29 past each hour. AM Service route for morning hours only. Only one route time each day. PM Service route for evening hours only. Only one route time each day. Source: SLORTA 2015; South County Transit 2015. Bicycle Facilities The City developed and adopted the City of Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trails Master Plan in 2012. This plan identifies the existing network of bicycle paths and trails, and sets standards for the expansion of that network. Within the City, current bicycle and trail networks consist of bicycle lanes (Class II bicycle lanes) and bicycle routes (Class III Bicycle lanes and concrete sidewalks are provided on both sides of Traffic Way providing pedestrian access to the Project site and the surrounding 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-9 Final EIR bicycle lanes). Within the Project vicinity, existing Class II bicycle lanes run in both directions along Traffic Way from South Traffic Way to East Branch Street, adjacent to the Project site. The Historic Village area provides bicycle racks, and bicycle friendly facilities. Other major roadways such as East Branch Street, East Grand Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue lack designated bicycle lanes, presenting a challenge to cyclists using these relatively high speed facilities. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and off-street paths that are intended to provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Pedestrian facilities are incomplete and lacking in some areas in the southwest corner of the City, with discontinuous sidewalks along some roadways such as Traffic Way, and lack pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods due to topography, existing roadway layout and few developed pedestrian trails. The Project site is located at the southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. East Cherry Avenue provides paved sidewalks on only one side for pedestrian travel. The west side of Traffic Way supports a paved sidewalk for pedestrian use, while the east side of the roadway fronting the project site is an unpaved gravel foot path, with a paved sidewalk resuming north of East Cherry Avenue. Along the northern side of East Cherry Avenue a paved cement sidewalk is developed adjacent to existing homes while the south side supports an informal dirt pedestrian path. Dirt roads and informal pedestrian paths on hillsides south and east of the site appear to receive light pedestrian use. None of the intersections within the Project vicinity support marked or protected crosswalks. For example, the nearest marked crosswalk to the Project site that provides safe access across to the west side of Traffic Way in the Project vicinity is located more than 500 feet to the north, limiting pedestrian access to commercial uses (e.g., Log Cabin Market) west of Traffic Way. A Pedestrian Safety Review of the City was conducted by ITS Berkeley in 2010 which found that improvement could be made to the street system to increase pedestrian safety, especially at large street crossings. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.10.2 Regulatory Setting 3.10.2.1 Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (codified in Title 42 of the United States Code [USC]), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation (i.e., businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and commercial facilities (i.e., other businesses). This regulation includes Appendix A to Part 36, Standards for Accessible Design, which establishes minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility. Examples of key guidelines include detectable warning for pedestrians entering traffic where there is no curb, a clear zone of 48 inches for the pedestrian travel way, and a vibration-free zone for pedestrians. 3.10.2.2 State California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans manages the operation of State Highways, including the U.S. Highway 101, which passes through the Arroyo Grande area. Senate Bill (SB) 743 To further the state’s commitment to the goals of SB 375, AB 32 and AB 1358, SB 743 adds Chapter 2.7, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects, to Division 13 (Section 21099) of the Public Resources Code. Key provisions of SB 743 include reforming aesthetics and parking CEQA analysis for urban infill projects and eliminating the measurement of automobile delay, including LOS, as a metric that can be used for measuring traffic impacts in transit priority areas. Under SB 743, the focus of transportation analysis will shift from driver delay to reduction of GHG emissions, creation of multimodal networks, and promotion of a mix of land uses. Pursuant to SB 743, the Office of Planning Research (OPR) released a Draft of Updates to the CEQA Guidelines in August 2014. OPR’s Draft of Updates proposes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the replacement metric for LOS in the context of CEQA. While OPR emphasizes that a lead agency has the discretionary authority to establish thresholds of significance, the Draft of Updates suggest criteria that indicate when a project may have a significant, or less than significant, transportation impact on the environment. For instance, 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-11 Final EIR a project that results in VMTs greater than the regional average for the land use type (e.g. residential, employment, commercial) may indicate a significant impact. Alternatively, a project may have a less than significant impact if it is located within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop, or results in a net decrease in VMTs compared to existing conditions. 3.10.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan The City General Plan sets objectives and policies for all city resources. Those associated with the standards of streets and highways incorporated within the City are managed through the Circulation Element of the General Plan. General Plan, Circulation Element Goal CT2 – Attain and maintain LOS C or better on all streets and controlled intersections. Policy 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. Policy CT2-3 – Require that General Plan Amendments, Rezoning Applications or development projects involving 20 or more estimated peak hour trip additions provide traffic studies according to City LOS policy, including subsequent amendments and refinements. Goal CT3 – Maintain and improve existing “multi-modal” circulation and transportation systems and facilities, to maximize alternatives to new street and highway construction. Policy CT3-3 – Promote non-motorized bike and pedestrian circulation facilities to serve all areas of the City and linking regional systems, with priority coordination with school, park, transit and major public facilities. Goal CT4 – Ensure compatibility and complementary relationships between the circulation/transportation system and existing and planned land uses, promoting environmental objectives such as safe and un-congested neighborhoods, energy conservation, reduction of air and noise pollution, transit, bike and pedestrian friendly characteristics. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element Goal PR4 – A network of trail, bicycle lanes and bikeways should be established for use by local residents and visitors to the Arroyo Grande valley. Implementation PR4-1.3 – Proposed trails, especially bicycle lanes which serve as connections to schools and recreation facilities, shall be given high priority in implementation. City of Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trail Master Plan (2012) The Bicycle & Trail Master Plan was prepared and adopted by the City in 2012 to improve and encourage bicycle and pedestrian transportation within the City. This plan works to establish a comprehensive system of bikeways and trail facilities in compliance with State, County, and City regulations and policies. 3.10.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.10.3.1 Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would result in a significant effect under CEQA if it were to: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure 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 (CMP), including but not limited to LOS standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); d) Result in inadequate emergency access; and/or, e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Relationship of SB 743 to Project Analysis As previously stated, a key provision of SB 743, passed in September 2013, is the elimination of vehicle delay and LOS as a CEQA significance criterion in urban areas. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-13 Final EIR However, since the proposed Project is not within a transit priority area, and OPR has not yet adopted new CEQA Guidelines for replacement criteria to LOS thresholds, this section continues to evaluate the project using the City’s adopted significance criteria of automobile delay (LOS), and impact analysis will not include a complete VMT analysis. 3.10.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology The transportation and traffic impact analysis addresses the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Project access would be provided by the construction of a new, two-lane collector street between Subarea 1 and Subarea 2 (refer to Section 2.0, Project Description for a complete description of Project subareas). The Project additionally proposes the improvement of East Cherry Avenue to include upgrades to the right-of-way in the form of pedestrian sidewalks, parkways, parking, and bicycle lanes. “Residential interior streets” would be designed to provide access throughout the single family residential neighborhood. An alley way will provide access to the rear side of the housing units that would be facing East Cherry Avenue, as well as those facing inward toward the proposed neighborhood. The TIA for the proposed Project analyzed the following scenarios (see Appendix K for further detail): • Existing Conditions; • Existing plus Approved/Pending (A/P) Projects Conditions; • Existing plus A/P Projects plus Project Conditions; • Cumulative “No Project” Conditions; and, • Cumulative plus Project Conditions. Based on the Goal CT2 of the City’s Circulation Element, attain and maintain LOS C or better on all streets and controlled intersections, the TIA utilized a LOS C standard for all scenarios in terms of identifying acceptable conditions. In addition, seconds of delay were considered. Significance thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections were evaluated. In accordance with the City’s Draft TIA Guidelines for signalized intersections, if 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 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 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 and proposed Project conditions were evaluated during the weekday PM peak hour period, which is expected to be the worst-case scenario for Project trip generation.1 The estimated Project trip generation during the AM peak hour is not expected to result in impacts beyond those identified in the PM peak period; therefore, per City direction, no quantitative analysis was conducted during the AM peak period or on weekends. Cumulative traffic volumes were developed using forecasts from the traffic models developed by the City and the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM). The roadways and intersections included in the TIA were identified jointly by the traffic consultant and City staff based on the magnitude and specific location of Project-generated traffic and the potential for newly generated trips to impact streets and roadways in the Project area. Project Trip Generation The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed Project was estimated by applying the applicable trip generation rates to the development proposal. Project trip generation estimates were calculated based on data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report (9th Edition) and other sources. The trip generation also accounts for pass-by trips (i.e., trips to the site made by vehicles already traveling by the site on the adjacent street, vehicles that would make an interim stop between their primary origin and destination) and internal capture rate (i.e., trips that are internal within a mixed use development and will complement each other, such as a restaurant and hotel next to each other) reductions. Pass-by trips are not considered “new” trips added to the street system by the Project, per se, but are included in the analysis of traffic that enters and exits the site. The Quality Restaurant (Land Use Code #931) rate of 40 percent was used to calculate the trip generation estimates for the proposed Project, and so a conservative 40 percent pass-by trip reduction was applied to the Project. After considering trip generation and reductions, the Project as a whole is anticipated to generate 1,646 average daily trips (ADT), including 132 AM peak hour trips and 157 PM peak hour trips. 1 The PM peak hour typically represents the worst-case for intersection operations unless affected facilities are near a school or other generators with a high AM peak hour. Outside of major tourist or recreation destinations, weekend roadway conditions do not typically exhibit peak hour traffic in excess of PM periods. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-15 Final EIR Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The Project-generated traffic volumes were distributed and assigned onto the adjacent street network based on use of the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model, existing traffic flow patterns in the area, geographic location of the Project site, and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the community. The Project trips were distributed throughout the study area as follows: • 30 percent to/from northbound U.S. Highway 101 via East Grand Avenue/Traffic Way north of East Cherry Avenue; • 5 percent to/from West Branch Street north of East Branch Street; • 35 percent to/from southbound U.S. 101 via Traffic Way south of East Cherry Avenue; • 12 percent to/from East Grand Avenue west of U.S. 101/Traffic Way and north of East Cherry Avenue; • 8 percent to/from Fair Oaks Avenue via Traffic Way north of Cherry Avenue • 7 percent to/from East Branch Street via Bridge Street/Traffic Way north of East Cherry Avenue; and • 3 percent to/from East Cherry Avenue east of the Project (becoming Branch Mill Road connecting to Huasna Road & Orcutt Road). Intersection LOS The majority of existing signalized intersections in the Project area currently operate at acceptable free flowing conditions of LOS C or better. Three of the study intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS, including Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way (LOS D, AM and PM peak hours), East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street (LOS F AM and PM peak hours), and Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound off-ramp/Orchard Avenue (LOS E, AM peak hour only). Tables 3.10-2 and 3.10-4 compare the LOS of intersections studied with and without the proposed Project. Existing LOS of the study intersections are shown in Figure 3.10-1. As shown in Figure 3.10-2 below and Table 3.10-4 and Table 3.10-5, with implementation of the proposed Project, significant impacts are anticipated to occur at the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way and East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersections at both AM and PM peak hours. These impacts are further described in Section 3.10.4, Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Figure 3.10-2. Existing + Approved/Pending Projects + Project Transportation Conditions Table 3.10-4. AM Peak Hour + Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary Intersection Number Intersection Existing + Approved/ Pending Existing + A/P + Project Change in Delay due to Project (Seconds) Significant Impact? Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 S. Traffic Way/Traffic Way/ U.S. 101 Ramps 12.0 B 12.4 B 0.4 No 2 E. Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way 14.6 C 16.5 C 1.9 No 3 Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way 36.1 E 43.2 E 7.1 Yes 4 Bridge Street/Traffic Way 19.9 C 21.5 C 1.6 No 5 W. Branch Street/Traffic Way2 25.0 C 32.2 C 7.2 No 6 E. Grand Avenue/ W. Branch Street 71.9 F 101.9 F 30.0 Yes 7 E. Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 NB Ramps2 19.7 B 20.6 C 0.9 No 8 Fair Oaks Avenue/ U.S. 101 SB Offramp /Orchard Avenue 38.9 E 39.5 E 0.6 No Notes: Intersections in bold operate at an unacceptable LOS. 1 Delay expressed in average seconds per vehicle. LOS is based on delay. 2 Signalized intersection. Source: Omni Means 2015 (see Appendix K). 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-17 Final EIR Table 3.10-5. PM Peak Hour Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary Intersection Number Intersection Existing + Approved/ Pending Existing + A/P + Project Change in Delay due to Project (Seconds) Significant Impact? Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 S. Traffic Way/Traffic Way/ U.S. 101 Ramps 10.8 B 11.1 B 0.3 No 2 E. Cherry Avenue/ Traffic Way 20.4 C 24.9 C 4.5 No 3 Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way 28.0 D 34.7 D 6.7 Yes 4 Bridge Street/ Traffic Way 15.4 C 16.3 C 0.9 No 5 W. Branch Street/ Traffic Way2 23.2 C 26.7 C 3.5 No 6 E. Grand Avenue/ W. Branch Street 166.6 F 233.0 F 66.4 Yes 7 E. Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 NB Ramps2 10.2 B 10.3 B 0.1 No 8 Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. 101 SB Off-ramp/Orchard Avenue 18.3 C 19.2 C 0.9 No Notes: Intersections in bold operate at an unacceptable LOS. 1 Delay expressed in average seconds per vehicle. LOS is based on delay. 2 Signalized intersection. Source: Omni Means 2015 (see Appendix K). 3.10.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The impacts of the proposed Project related to traffic were evaluated using trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. Trip generation estimates the amount of added traffic to the roadway network. Trip distribution estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. Trip assignment allocates trips to specific street segments and intersection turning movements. The results of these three components, as well as the intersection LOS calculations, are considered traffic data under Project conditions and are compared to traffic data for existing conditions under Section 3.10.1, Environmental Setting (refer to Table 3.10-2), to determine impacts on traffic in the Project area. The transportation related impacts associated with the proposed Project are described below. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.10-6. Summary of Project Impacts Transportation and Traffic Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact TRANS-1. Project construction activities would potentially create short-term traffic impacts 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. MM TRANS-1a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact TRANS-2. Project generated traffic would potentially cause the LOS at the Fair Oaks 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. MM TRANS-2a Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact TRANS-3. Project generated traffic would potentially cause delays at the East Grand 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. MM TRANS-3a MM TRANS-3b Significant and Unavoidable Impact TRANS-4. Project generated traffic would 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. None required Less than Significant Impact TRANS-5. The proposed Project would potentially create conflicts with turning movements at driveways and intersections on the Project site. MM TRANS-5a (Recommended) Less than Significant Impact TRANS-6. The proposed Project would potentially generate and attract trips to and from U.S. Highway 101, incrementally increasing congestion of the region’s main highway. None required Less than Significant Impact TRANS-7. The proposed Project would 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. MM AQ-5a Less than Significant Impact TRANS-1 Project construction activities would potentially create short-term traffic impacts 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation). 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-19 Final EIR Construction related increases in traffic would be short-term in nature and would incrementally contribute to road or intersection congestion over the planning horizon. Increased construction traffic, particularly large haul trucks and other heavy equipment (e.g., earthmovers), may disrupt local traffic flows, congest limited turn lane capacities, and generally slow traffic movement. A grading plan for the entire site has not been prepared, making it difficult to forecast haul truck trips for import or export of fill during site grading. However, the grading plan for Subarea 2 gives 17,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 11,000 cy of fill, which implies an export of 6,000 cy. Assuming a typical haul truck holds 10 cy, there would be approximately 600 haul truck trips associated with Subarea 2. Cut and fill amounts for Subarea 1 and 3 are unknown at this time, but would contribute substantially to the total number of haul truck trips. However, this estimate does not account for the compaction of soil, which has the potential to reduce the number of trips. Construction activity during early site preparation typically also includes use of haul trucks for fill import or export, cement trucks, material and equipment delivery trucks and worker vehicles. These vehicles would likely use U.S. Highway 101 to travel to and from the site. Other potential construction-related impacts include idling, parked, or queued heavy trucks that could potentially obstruct visibility, traffic flows and interfere with pedestrian and bicycle flows. Further, construction activities would require parking for construction workers. Construction may also require the temporary or extended closure of traffic lanes, sidewalks and bicycle lanes on surrounding streets (e.g., Class II bicycle lane on Traffic Way) to accommodate parked vehicles, operation of construction equipment, installation of Project improvements, etc. Depending on final construction plan details, such lane and sidewalk closures could extend from a single day to several weeks. Construction parking demand combined with temporary removal of on-street parking resulting from development under the Project would potentially affect on-street parking availability on East Cherry Avenue. Project construction activities could create potentially significant short-term impacts along major access routes in the vicinity of the Project site. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM TRANS-1a would require preparation of a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan, which would address construction traffic routing and control, vehicular and pedestrian safety, pedestrian/bicycle access and parking, street closures, and construction parking. This Construction Impact Mitigation Plan would address individual phases of development including demolition, site preparation, and on-going construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measure MM TRANS-1 would reduce construction-related traffic impacts to less than significant with mitigation. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measure for All Subareas MM TRANS-1a Future development occurring under the proposed Project shall be required to prepare a Construction Transportation Management Plan for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a building permit to address and manage traffic during construction and shall be designed to: • Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network • Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private parking to the greatest extent practicable • Ensure safety for both those constructing the project and the surrounding community • Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods The Construction Transportation Management Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the following City departments: Community Development, Public Works, Fire, and Police, to ensure that the Plan has been designed in accordance with this mitigation measure. This review shall occur prior to issuance of grading or building permits. It shall, at a minimum, include the following: Ongoing Requirements throughout the Duration of Construction: • A detailed Construction Transportation Management Plan for work zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include parking and travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide, and directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking lanes. The plan shall include specific information regarding the Project’s construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to commencement of construction and implemented in accordance with this approval. • Work within the public right-of-way shall be performed between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. This work includes dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours construction permit. • Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with established Public Works requirements. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-21 Final EIR • Trucks shall only travel on a City-approved construction route. Limited queuing may occur on the construction site itself. • Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public; the preferred location for materials is to be on-site, with a minimum amount of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to a current Use of Public Property Permit. • Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval through the After Hours Permit process administered by the Building and Safety Division. • Provision of off-street parking for construction workers, which may include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if determined necessary by the City. Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to Commencement of Construction: • The traveling public shall be advised of impending construction activities which may substantially affect key roadways or other facilities (e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media listing/notification, and implementation of an approved Construction Impact Mitigation Plan). • A Use of Public Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit, or Oversize Load Permit, as well as any Caltrans permits required for any construction work requiring encroachment into public rights-of-way, detours, or any other work within the public right-of- way shall be obtained. • Timely notification of construction schedules shall be provided to all affected agencies (e.g., Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Community Development Department) and to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet. • Construction work shall be coordinated with affected agencies in advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per each submittal. • Public Works Department approval of any haul routes for earth, concrete, or construction materials and equipment hauling shall be obtained. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall submit the Construction Transportation Mitigation Plan to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The Applicants shall conduct necessary construction employee training prior 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-22 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR to the commencement of construction. The City Public Works Department, Police Department, and Fire Department, and nearby residences shall be notified of the construction schedule prior to construction. Monitoring. The City shall ensure compliance with the Construction Transportation Mitigation Plan with periodic inspections of the Project site during construction. Complaints related to construction traffic at the site shall be directed to the City Public Works Department. Residual Impact Residual impacts under TRANS-1 would be less than significant. The City’s municipal code establishes development impact fees for traffic signalization and transportation facilities, which are imposed as a condition of approval upon all development projects for which a building permit is issued. These impact fees are established in order to pay for the capital costs of public facilities reasonably related to the needs of new development in the City. Impact TRANS-2 Project generated traffic would potentially cause the LOS at the Fair Oaks 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 (Less than Significant with Mitigation). The unsignalized Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection currently operates at an unacceptable LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours (refer to Table 3.10-4 and Table 3.10-5), and meets warrants for installation of a traffic signal. Omni Means (2015) calculated that the Project would add more than 5.0 seconds of delay to the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects Scenario (i.e., +7.1 seconds in the AM peak hour and +6.7 seconds in the PM peak hour) which exceeds the significance threshold established by the City for unsignalized intersections, thereby creating a Project-specific significant impact at this intersection. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan identifies the need for intersection improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way; these improvements are planned and discretionary funding to the City for preliminary phases may be available (SLOCOG 2014a). 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-23 Final EIR Implementation of the mitigation measure of installing a traffic signal as discussed below would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure for Subarea 2 MM TRANS-2a Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way: A new traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue. Plan Requirements and Timing. Prior to issuance of a development permit for construction, including grading, the Applicant shall 1) submit a funding agreement between the owners of the three subareas for the Traffic Signal Improvements to the City for review and approval; and 2) submit Traffic Signal Improvement Plans to the City for review and approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall complete construction of the traffic signal improvements. Monitoring. The City shall review and approve the funding agreement between the owners of the three subareas for the traffic signal design and construction prior to the issuance of any development permit for construction, including grading. The City shall ensure the traffic signal is installed and operational prior to the issuance building permits. Residual Impact Residual impacts under TRANS-2 would be less than significant with the mitigation for installation of a traffic signal. Impact TRANS-3 Project generated traffic would potentially cause delays at the East Grand 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 (Significant and Unavoidable). Under all analyzed scenarios, the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection currently operates at a LOS F. Under the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project conditions, Project-generated traffic would contribute to the projected AM and PM 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-24 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR peak hour operation at LOS F at the intersection and would increase the delay by more than 5 seconds in each peak hour, thus creating a Project specific significant impact at this intersection (refer to Table 3.10-4 and Table 3.10-5). Signalization of the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection is not recommended, as it is projected to cause queuing that exceeds available storage between the closely-spaced East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street and East Branch Street/Traffic Way intersections, which would create significant secondary impacts that would cause the existing signal at East Branch Street/Traffic Way to decrease from LOS 'C' to LOS 'D' in the AM peak hour. Modifying the lane geometry of the intersection to add a free right turn lane from westbound East Branch Street onto northbound West Branch Street as depicted on Figure 13 of Appendix K would reduce Project-created delays, but would result in the continuation of unacceptable LOS F in both the Existing Short Term plus Project and Cumulative plus Project scenarios. Although this alternative would appear to mitigate the Project's created increase in delay impact at this location to a less than significant level (reducing delay overall), it would be inconsistent with the requirements of City General Plan Policy 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." Because these measures would leave the Project inconsistent with adopted City General Plan policy, this impact would remain significant, requiring adoption of a statement of overriding considerations per City General Plan Policy CT2-1. An alternative mitigation measure at this intersection would be to construct two modern roundabouts: one at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps, and one at the intersection of East Branch Street/Traffic Way, as shown in Figure 3.10-3 below. However, the cost to design and construct these two roundabouts may not be roughly proportional to Project impacts as the intersection already operates at LOS F, leaving this measure infeasible for the proposed Project alone to implement. Because this mitigation is unscheduled and unfunded and no other feasible mitigation measures are available, Project short-term impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. However, if the mitigation measure below is implemented, the long-term impact could be reduced to less than significant. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-25 Final EIR Figure 3.10-3. Roundabout Alternative Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM TRANS-3a East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street: The Applicants shall modify the lane geometry of the intersection of East Grand Avenue and West Branch Street in order to design and install the necessary improvements including widening, restriping, and curb reconstruction of westbound West Branch Street/ northbound West Branch Street to create an exclusive right turn lane. Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall submit plans for the restriping of West Branch Street including any modifications necessary to the northeast curb return and sidewalk to provide for design vehicle turning movements to the City for review and approval from the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any development permit for construction, including grading. Monitoring. Road improvements shall be inspected and approved by the City. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-26 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR MM TRANS-3b East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street: The Applicants shall pay a fair share portion of the design and construction costs for construction of two roundabouts at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps and the intersection of East Branch Street and Traffic Way, or an alternative transportation improvements that would provide an acceptable LOS consistent with adopted City policy, in order to mitigate the Project’s long-term impact on the cumulative condition, using the Equitable Share Responsibility Formula from the 2002 Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Applicants shall fund a fair share of the estimated costs for construction of two roundabouts at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps and the intersection of East Branch Street and Traffic Way. Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall submit payment of their fair share of funding for the above mitigation prior to issuance of land use and/or CUPs grading and/or building permits. Monitoring. The City shall determine the amount of payment of fair shares for each Applicant commensurate with metrics that demonstrate the relative level and intensity of proposed development (e.g., square footage, land use type, trip generation, etc.). Residual Impact Residual impacts under TRANS-3 would remain unavoidable and significant as there are no feasible mitigation measures that could both eliminate Project related increases in delay at this intersection and which are consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan. MM TRANS-3a is feasible for the Project to implement but would leave the Project inconsistent with City General Plan Policy CT2-1. MM TRANS-3b would fully mitigate Project impacts in manner that appears to be physically feasible and consistent with the City’s General Plan mitigation, but is unfunded and unscheduled and therefore it cannot be stated with certainly when or if the improvements will be completed. Based upon the TIA prepared by Omni Means Engineering Solutions, the Applicants’ fair share contribution to these improvements may constitute a limited portion of overall roundabout costs, which have not yet been identified, leaving the timing of and potential for full mitigation uncertain. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-27 Final EIR Impact TRANS-4 Project generated traffic would 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 (Less then Significant). The Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound off-ramp/Orchard Avenue intersection is currently operating at unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour. The Project is calculated to add less than 1.0 second of delay for each peak hour over both the Existing plus Approved/Pending Project Scenario (refer to Table 3.10-4 and Table 3.10-5). Therefore the Project would only incrementally increase delay at this intersection. In addition, the City has obtained federal funding to design and construct a roundabout to address existing deficiencies at this intersection. Although the timing of the improvement is unknown, a roundabout at this location was evaluated using SIDRA modeling software, and a modern roundabout is projected to operate at LOS A in both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, Project-related impacts to LOS at this intersection would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact TRANS-5 The proposed Project would potentially create conflicts with turning movements at driveways and intersections on the Project site (Less than Significant). The implementation of the Project would potentially create conflicts with Project driveways and access point near intersections, especially at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and Project access points, and the intersection of Traffic Way and the driveway to the proposed hotel. Project access to East Cherry Avenue would need to be stop sign controlled, while the rest of East Cherry Avenue would remain uncontrolled. Project access for Subarea 1 would be Traffic Way and the new collector road installed by Subarea 2. Project access from Traffic Way would be limited. Access to East Cherry Avenue would create conflicts with the intersection of Traffic way and East Cherry Avenue and the intersection of East Cherry Avenue and the new collector road. Relatively low traffic 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-28 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR volumes and speeds, and excellent line of sight on East Cherry Avenue would ensure that this new intersection would operate at acceptable LOS with minimal turning movement conflicts. Project access to Traffic Way would potentially create turning movement conflicts due to the relatively high speed of traffic coming from the U.S. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp onto Traffic Way, which is not controlled by a stop sign. This impact is considered adverse but less than significant. A recommended condition of approval is detailed below in order to further reduce potential impacts associated with Subarea 1. Recommended Condition of Approval for Subarea 1 MM TRANS-5a As part of review of permits for development of Subarea 1 and the proposed hotel/restaurant, a circulation study shall be prepared to guide driveway location, design, and ingress/egress access in such a way to ensure public safety and utility. Requirements and Timing. Prior to approval of the CUP, the Applicant shall submit a circulation study prepared by a Traffic Engineer. Monitoring. The City require will require the submittal of circulation study, with review and concurrence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to CUP review and approval. Residual Impact Residual impacts under TRANS-5 would be less than significant. Impact TRANS-6 The proposed Project would potentially generate and attract trips to and from U.S. Highway 101, incrementally increasing congestion of the region’s main highway (Less than Significant). Approximately 30 to 35 percent of Project-generated traffic is anticipated to use U.S. Highway 101, adding approximately 576 ADT and 55 PM peak hour trips to this roadway (Omni Means 2015). Traffic on the U.S. Highway 101 through Arroyo Grande was estimated at 50,575 ADT in 2012 and was operating at near capacity during peaks (SLOCOG 2014a). Project-generated traffic would contribute to a less than 1.5 percent increase in volumes along U.S. Highway 101 in this segment. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-29 Final EIR The U.S. Highway 101 Corridor Mobility Management Plan confirmed that San Luis Obispo County’s mature transportation system is beginning to experience increasing and recurrent congestion. U.S. Highway 101 will eventually need to be widened for additional capacity. Based on future funding projections, this is beyond the ability of the region to address (SLOCOG 2014b). The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan includes new interchange construction at South Traffic Way/Fair Oaks, which would extend the U.S. Highway 101 ramps at South Traffic Way (SLOCOG 2014a); while this would improve operating conditions within this segment of U.S. Highway 101, this improvement is currently not funded. Although the Project would contribute incrementally to these congestion issues along the U.S. Highway 101 in the long term, the increase of less than 1.5 percent is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact TRANS-7 The proposed Project would 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 (Less than Significant). It is expected that the proposed Project would increase transit demand that may not be easily served by the existing transit services. As described in Section 3.10.1, Environmental Setting, existing transit headways (i.e., time between buses) in the Project vicinity are infrequent, and there is no direct transit service to the Project site, with the nearest transit stop located approximately 0.30 miles away from the site. The nearest Amtrak station is accessible by a local bus route that stops approximately 0.50 miles northwest of the Project site. The very infrequent headways and distance to the nearest transit stop would inhibit future residents and employees from using transit and not facilitate City policies to encourage transit use. Because of the long headway in this portion of the City, it is assumed that individuals that have the choice to drive or take public transit would not choose public transit. Therefore, although area transit routes may have sufficient capacity to serve the demand created by the Project, increased demand for relatively convenient transit service would remain unmet. This impact is considered adverse but less than significant. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 3.10-30 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Measures MM AQ-5a would apply. Residual Impact Implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ-5a would further ensure that residual impacts under TRANS-7 would be less than significant. While transit capacity would appear to remain adequate, due to location of the site and design and operation of the existing transit systems, future residents and employees would be largely reliant upon the automobile. 3.10.5 Cumulative Impacts The Project would continue the trend of urban development in the City and would contribute incrementally to the need for improved transportation facilities in the area. The Project contributes to cumulative traffic impacts at two of the eight study intersections. At the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection, the proposed Project would contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact that cannot be readily mitigated in a known timeframe because of lack of funding and programming. Under cumulative conditions, significant LOS impacts would continue to occur at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street; however, all other study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or above) after the implementation of Project mitigation (see Table 3.10-7). Overall, the Project contribution to cumulative impacts to transportation is considered significant and unavoidable. 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.10-31 Final EIR Table 3.10-7. Cumulative + Project (Mitigated) Conditions: Intersection LOS Intersection Number Intersection Control Type AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? Delay (sec/veh) LOS Warrant Met? 1 S. Traffic Way/Traffic Way/ U.S. 101 Ramps TWSC 12.4 B No 11.1 B No 2 E. Cherry Avenue/ Traffic Way TWSC 16.5 C No 24.9 C No 3 Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way Signal 17.3 B -- 25.5 C -- 4 Bridge Street/ Traffic Way TWSC 21.5 C No 16.3 C No 5 W. Branch Street/ Traffic Way Signal 36.2 D -- 24.5 C -- 6 E. Grand Avenue/ W. Branch Street Signal 8.8 A -- 13.3 A -- 7 E. Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 NB Ramps Signal 18.6 B -- 12.4 B -- 8 Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. 101 SB Off-ramp/Orchard Avenue RNDBT 9.1 A -- 9.1 A -- Legend: TWSC: Two-Way Stop-Control; AWSC: All-Way Stop-Control; RNDBT = Roundabout LOS based on delay of worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections; average of all approaches for AWSC, Signal, and RNDBT. Warrant: CA MUTCD Peak-Hour Warrant-3. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-1 Final EIR 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES The following section describes existing and planned utilities and public services, and evaluates the operation and capacity of these utilities and services with the development of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). Utilities and public services used during construction and operation of the proposed Project include water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, police and fire protection, schools, and energy services. Parks and recreational facilities are addressed in Section 3.9, Recreation. Development of the Project site with residential and commercial uses would increase demand on City services, including fire protection, police protection and other City supported public services; however, the required impact fees and potential tax revenue is designed to accommodate such services. 3.11.1 Environmental Setting 3.11.1.1 Public Services Public Schools The Project site is located within the Lucia Mar Unified School District (School District) (K-12), which encompasses the communities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Nipomo, Oceano, Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach (Lucia Mar Unified School District 2016a). The School District is the largest school district in San Luis Obispo County, and serves over 10,700 students. The School District consists of 19 schools: eleven elementary schools, three middle schools, four high schools, and one continuation high school. The school district contains one full-time teacher for every 23 students, which is below the State average of one teacher per 24 students (NCES 2015). The nearest public schools are Arroyo Grande High School, Paulding Middle School, and Harloe Elementary School. A list of nearby public schools that could serve the Project site are listed below (Table 3.11-1). Although school enrollment has been decreasing in recent years, nearly all schools within the School District are operating at or above capacity (City of Arroyo Grande 2013). Table 3.11-1. Public Schools within the Project Vicinity School Location Distance From Site (miles) Arroyo Grande HS 495 Valley Rd., Arroyo Grande 0.40 Village PS 146 Traffic Way, Arroyo Grande 0.32 Paulding MS 600 Crown Hill St., Arroyo Grande 0.53 Harloe ES 901 Fair Oaks Ave., Arroyo Grande 1.11 Arroyo Grande PS 713 Faeh Ave., Arroyo Grande 1.60 Ocean View ES 1208 Linda Dr., Arroyo Grande 1.41 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Police Protection Police services in the Project vicinity are provided by the Arroyo Grande Police Department (AGPD). The AGPD is staffed by 30 full-time employees who provide law enforcement and emergency response throughout the City and surrounding area. The Police Department is located at 200 North Halcyon Road, approximately 1.0 mile from the Project site, with an average emergency response time of 2.8 minutes to the site location (Linda Cox 2015). The department is organized into two major divisions: Patrol Services and Support Services, each led by a Commander. In addition to the 30 full-time employees, the department has six part-time employees, two Reserve Offices, two Neighborhood Services Technicians, one Fleet and Equipment Technician, on Training Manager, and 52 community volunteers. Provision of police protection services are regulated under the General Plan Safety Element, which requires adequate provision of these services for a build-out population of 20,000 individuals. Fire Protection The Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA) provides emergency and non-emergency fire and protection services. Emergency services include fire suppression, emergency medical services, hazardous materials services, Oceano Dunes response, technical rescue, fire investigations, disaster response, and public assistance. Non-emergency services include fire and life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, code compliance and public education. The FCFA currently operates three fire stations that service the Five Cities region, responding to an area approximately 9.5 square miles (FCFA 2015a). The FCFA also provides the only ladder truck in the south San Luis Obispo County and responds to emergencies anywhere between Avila Beach and Nipomo (FCFA 2015b). According to the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan, Safety Element, response throughout the City should be a maximum of six (6) minutes. Just as with police protection services, fire protection and prevention services are regulated under the Safety Element, which requires adequate provision of these services for a build-out population of 20,000 individuals. Station 1 of the FCFA is located closest to the Project site, just north along Traffic Way at 140 Traffic Way, approximately 1,760 feet away. The response time for emergencies to the Project site would be less than three (3) minutes (Steve Lieberman 2015). 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-3 Final EIR 3.11.1.2 Utility Services Water Supply The Urban Water Management Plan assesses the City water demand and water supply in regards to the proposed build-out population, and anticipates adequate supply of water upon reaching build-out of the City (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). The City receives its water primarily from Lopez Reservoir, as well as groundwater extracted from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and Pismo Formation (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). Water retrieved from the Lopez Reservoir is treated at the Lopez Water Treatment Plant located at the reservoir and operation of the dam and treatment facilities is conducted by the San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLOFCWCD). This is the primary supply of fresh water and is transported to the Five Cities area via the Lopez Pipeline. Current capacity for the reservoir is approximately 49,400 acre-feet (af) with a safe yield of 8,730 acre-feet per year (afy) (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). Total water demand for the City in 2010 equated to 3,793 afy and it is projected that the City water supply availability will be approximately 3,813 afy in 2020 (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a, see Table 3.11-2). In accordance with the Urban Water Management Plan, the City of Arroyo Grande is contracted to receive 2,290 afy from the Lopez Reservoir, accounting for approximately half of the available water allocation; however, in surplus years, the City may be offered surplus supplies. Table 3.11-2. Arroyo Grande Water Supply Water Supply Sources Historic 2010 Amount (afy) Projected 2020 Amount (afy) Groundwater – Santa Maria Groundwater Basin 1,323 1,323 Groundwater – Pismo Formation 80 200 County of San Luis Obispo Lopez Reservoir Project 2,290 2,290 Oceano Community Services District 100 01 Total 3,793 3,813 1 Assumes that the current contract allowing for 100 afy from the Oceano Community Services District will have expired. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2012a. Groundwater makes up almost 25 percent of the City’s water demand, which is typically used for agriculture within the City limits and produced from privately owned wells. The City of Arroyo Grande has a Groundwater Management Agreement with an entitlement of 1,323 afy from this basin. Lastly, the City receives approximately 200 afy from City wells within the Pismo Formation Groundwater Basin, which is not an adjudicated basin, nor is 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR identified as an overdrafted basin by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Thus, total water supply availability to the City from entitlements and appropriative rights is approximately 3,813 afy (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). The Project site utilizes groundwater and is not connected to the City’s water infrastructure. At the Project site, groundwater is primarily supplied by two existing onsite wells and is used for the overhead spray irrigation of row crops on the 11.62-acre Subarea 2. Water demand for types of crops produced on the site ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 af per acre. Historic and current annual water use for the 11.62 acres of active agricultural land is approximately 34.86 afy. Subarea 1 and Subarea 3 of the Project site consist of undeveloped and fallow land which currently do not utilize water from City supply, and recent water demand for these sites is estimated to be very low (i.e., less than 1.0 af per acre)(Oasis Associates, Inc. 2015); however, Subarea 1 has historically been irrigated and used for row crops, and is estimated to have had a long-term water demand of 6.48 afy. Subarea 3 is not irrigated and has a water demand of 0 afy. Wastewater Treatment The City provides a public wastewater collection system for developments within the City limits which conveys raw wastewater to trunk mains owned and operated by the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) for wastewater treatment. This wastewater treatment district serves the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and the community of Oceano. The sanitary sewer system consists of nearly 73 miles of gravity sewer systems and five wastewater lift stations throughout the City (City of Arroyo Grande 2012b). The sewer pipe collection system conveys approximately 1.20 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater with peak daily flows of approximately 3.16 mgd (SSLOCSD 2014). The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was designed to operate at a capacity flow rate of 5.0 mgd and a 9.0 mgd peak wet weather flow rate (SSLOCSD 2014). Routine video inspections of the collections system are carried out every four years, with cleaning of the system done on average of every fourth year of inspection as part of the District’s preventative maintenance plan (SSLOCSD 2014). Existing City infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site includes existing sewer mains that run along the south side of East Cherry Avenue. The Project site lies with the service area of the SSLOCSD, approximately 3.2 miles east, but the site is not currently serviced by the facility. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-5 Final EIR Solid Waste Disposal South County Sanitary is the service provider for the City, including the Project vicinity, and offers curbside solid waste and recyclable collection services. South County Sanitary is a municipal waste hauling company supported by the Cold Canyon Landfill, and is owned by Waste Connections, Inc. (South County Sanitary 2015). The Cold Canyon Landfill is the primary Landfill for the Five Cities area, as well as for the City of San Luis Obispo, and is projected to reach its capacity around 2018. The landfill was operating at approximately 250,000 tons per year between 2004 and 2009, resulting in an average of 685 tons per day (tpd); however, the facility is permitted to accept up to 1,620 tpd (SWCA Environmental Services 2012). The landfill has been approved for the expansion of the facilities capacity from 1,620 to 2,500 tpd, extending the landfill’s projections to reach capacity in approximately 30 years in order adequately service current and anticipated district needs (County of San Luis Obispo 2012). Energy Services California’s three main energy sources are electricity, natural gas, and crude oil. Approximately 61.3 percent of the State’s total electricity comes from natural gas, 8.6 percent comes from nuclear, 7.1 percent comes from large (non-renewable) hydroelectric power, 0.5 percent came from coal, and 22.5 percent comes from renewable sources. Renewable energy sources used to produce electricity include geothermal, small hydroelectric power, wind power, biomass and waste products, and solar energy (CEC 2015b). In 2014, California consumed approximately 282,154 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity and 10,208 million Therms (thm) of natural gas (CEC 2015a). As the population in California grows over the next few years, consumption is anticipated to steadily increase at a rate of 1.27 percent annually for electricity and 0.70 percent annually for natural gas (CEC 2013). Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electrical services and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) supplies gas services to the City. Existing infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site includes a gas main infrastructure that runs along East Cherry Avenue. Gas and electricity services are not currently provided to the Project site. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 3.11.2 Regulatory Setting 3.11.2.1 Federal Clean Water Act The federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, is the primary statute governing water quality. The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards for industries. The statute’s goal is to regulate all discharges into the nation’s waters and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of those waters. The Clean Water Act sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained under its provisions. The Clean Water Act mandates permits for wastewater and storm water discharges, requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The Clean Water Act also funds the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognizes the need for planning to address nonpoint sources of pollution. 3.11.2.2 State California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) (1989) This Act requires all jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of waste stream by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting to limit reliance on landfills. Assembly Bill (AB) 341 (2011) This bill established a State policy goal that no less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and requiring CalRecycle to provide a report to the Legislature that recommends strategies to achieve the policy goal by January 1, 2014. AB 341 builds on the existing AB 939 requirement that every jurisdiction divert at least 50 percent of its waste. AB 341 requires any business (including schools and government facilities) that generates four cubic yards or more of waste per week, and multifamily buildings with five or more units to arrange for recycling services. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-7 Final EIR Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) (1998) This bill requires that cities and counties mitigate impacts to school facilities as a condition of approving new developments. SB 50 also authorizes school districts to levy statutory developer fees are level which may be significantly high than previously permitted. To levy fees higher than permitted, the school district must conduct a Needs Analysis and a Fee Justification Study which address the justification of the levying of developer fees. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) The SGMA is a statewide policy that empowers local agencies to adopt groundwater management plans that relate to the needs and resources of their communities. It is the intent of the SGMA to: • Provide for the sustainable management of groundwater basins; • Enhance local management of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store groundwater and Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution. It is the intent of the Legislature to preserve the security of water rights in the state to the greatest extent possible consistent with the sustainable management of groundwater; • Establish minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management; • Provide local groundwater agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater; • Avoid or minimize subsidence; • Improve data collection and understanding about groundwater; • Increase groundwater storage and remove impediments to recharge; • Manage groundwater basins through the actions of local governmental agencies to the greatest extent feasible, while minimizing state intervention to only when necessary to ensure that local agencies manage groundwater in a sustainable manner; and • Provide a more efficient and cost-effective groundwater adjudication process that protects water rights, ensures due process, prevents unnecessary delay, and furthers the objectives of this part. The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) The SWRCB has adopted a statewide construction general permit that applies to storm water and non-storm water discharges from construction activities. This general permit, which is implemented and enforced in the Five Cities region by the Central Coast Regional 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), requires all owners of land where construction activity occurs to: • Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm water systems and other waters of the U.S.; • Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) emphasizing storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs); and • Perform inspections of storm water pollution prevention measures to assess their effectiveness. California Education Code (EC) Sections 41376 and 41378 The California EC establishes standards regulating the California education system. Section 41376 and 41378 of the EC prescribe maximum class sizes and penalties for any school district that should exceed the limits established in 1964. Districts which exceed established class sizes will have their revenue funding limit reduced by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Size limits for classes K-8 are: • Kindergarten – Average class size is not to exceed 31 students and individual class size is not to exceed 33 students. • Grades one through three – Average class size is not to exceed 30 students and individual class size is not to exceed 32 students. • Grades four through eight – Average number of students per teacher is not to exceed the greater of 29.9 or the district’s average number of students per teacher in 1964. • Executive Order B-29-15: Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements Based upon the severe statewide drought, in April of 2015, the Governor of California declared a Drought State of Emergency and authorized the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. These restrictions will require water suppliers to California's cities and towns to reduce usage as compared to the amount used in 2013. 3.11.2.3 Local City of Arroyo Grande General Plan The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan contains goals and policies that address many of the services to the city including fire services, law enforcement, and other emergency services. These services have been outlined in the Safety Element of the General Plan which 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-9 Final EIR establishes programs and mitigation measures to ensure the effective deliverance of these services. The following goals and policies are applicable to the Project: General Plan, Safety Element Goal S3 – Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire. Policy S3-2 – Ensure that adequate facilities, equipment and personnel are available to meet the demands of fire fighting in the City of Arroyo Grande. Policy S3-3 – Maintain and improve the Fire Department’s ability to respond to emergency calls and suppress fires throughout the City within a maximum response time of six (6) minutes. Program S3-3.1 – Prepare and work to achieve a maximum of six (6) minutes response time goal. This maximum response time will be based upon density of development, and the value at risk contrasted with an acceptable level of risk. More concentrated urban uses should be within four (4) minutes response time. City of Arroyo Grande Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements Based upon the Governor’s Executive Order B-29-15, the City has implemented a comprehensive water conservation, monitoring, and enforcement program including restrictions to water use, landscaping irrigation limits, conserving uses of potable water, and conservation measures for hotels and restaurants. This authority is based upon provisions of the California Water Code relating to water shortage emergencies and water conservation programs (Water Code Sections 350 et seq. and Water Code Sections 375 et seq.). 3.11.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.11.3.1 Thresholds for Determining Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the proposed Project would have significant adverse impacts on utilities and public services if: a) Impacts to water supplies would be significant if any component of the Project generated a demand that would potentially exceed the capacity of existing or forecasted supplies, facilities, or service lines; b) Impacts to wastewater infrastructure would be significant if the proposed Project would potentially exceed the design capacity of sewer lines or the wastewater treatment plant; 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR c) Impacts to solid waste disposal would be significant if the Project site generated solid waste which could not be accommodated by the designated landfill’s permitted capacity; d) Impacts to police protection services would be significant if response times to the Project site were inadequate, or if police staffing would be inadequate to support the proposed Project; e) Impacts to fire protection services would be significant if response times to the Project site did not meet established requirements (e.g. less than 6 minutes), or if the firefighter/population ratio would decline, or if firefighter staffing or equipment would be inadequate to support the proposed Project;. f) Impacts would be significant if operation of the Project consumed energy beyond PG&E or SCG capacity to supply or produce; g) Impacts would be significant if the proposed Project conflicted with adopted energy conservation plans.; or h) Impacts would be significant if construction or operation of the proposed Project used non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. 3.11.3.2 Impact Assessment Methodology Potential impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated by reviewing Project characteristics to assess their potential to affect the capacities of wastewater, potable water, and energy service utilities. General Plan documents and other available City resources were reviewed to provide an assessment of impacts. Projected utility demands and wastewater generation for the proposed Project were compared with the current and projected capacity available for allocation within the City. Impacts to wastewater infrastructure are considered significant if the proposed Project would result in sewer line or treatment plant system deficiencies. Impacts to public services were assessed in the Initial Study, located with Appendix A of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and were further analyzed for the Project’s impacts to the capacity of local public schools and demand on police and fire protection services. 3.11.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Utility Services Currently, the Project site is not serviced by or connected to primary City utility services (e.g. water, wastewater, gas, electricity). To accommodate utility service needs of the onsite development, the individual developers would install necessary water and wastewater conveyance systems, dry utility connections connecting to existing City infrastructure located primarily along East Cherry Avenue. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-11 Final EIR Park and Recreation Services Given the development of additional residential units and the generation of approximately 140 new individuals to the City population, the need for park and recreational services would increase. To accommodate City requirements for four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 individuals, a total of 0.55 acres of parkland would be needed for the Project. The Project would include the development of a 0.35-acre neighborhood park, community gardens, additional pathways, and construction of new bikeways which present recreational opportunities to residents of the Project and surrounding Project vicinity. However, the addition of 0.35 acres of parkland for the Project would not meet the City requirement of 0.56 acres of parkland required for the additional generation of 140 individuals, resulting in increased demand for, and use of, existing recreational resources. Impacts to park and recreation facilities and mitigation measures are further discussed in Section 3.9, Recreation (refer to Impact REC-1). Stormwater Drainage Facilities The proposed Project would result in the removal of current onsite drainage facilities in an effort to adequately manage stormwater throughout implementation of the Project. This would require the removal of the manmade drainage ditch adjacent to the southern border of Subarea 2 and the construction of a new stormwater drainage system throughout Subarea 2. The new stormwater network would convey on and offsite stormwater to the current 48- inch storm drain located at the south east corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. Impacts associated with this aspect of the Project are further assessed in Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality (refer to Impact HYD-3). 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Table 3.11-3. Summary of Project Impacts Utility and Public Service Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance Impact UT-1. Implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater capacity of the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant. None required Less than Significant Impact UT-2. The proposed Project would require the expansion of existing utility infrastructure including water, sewer, gas and electricity into the site; the construction of which would cause less than significant environmental effects. MM AQ-1a MM AQ-1b MM AQ-1c MM AQ-1d MM BIO-1a MM NOI-1a MM NOI-1b Less than Significant with Mitigation Impact UT-3. Implementation of the Project would 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. None required Less than Significant Impact UT-4. The proposed Project would generate additional solid waste needing disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill; however, impacts would be less than significant. None required Less than Significant Impact UT-5. The proposed Project would increase demand for fire protection, police protection, and public school services. None required Less than Significant Impact UT-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed the wastewater capacity of the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant (Less than Significant). Wastewater treatment services for the proposed Project would be provided by the City collection system. As described in Section 2.6.7, the City collection system would convey raw wastewater to mains operated by the SSLOCSD, which would also provide wastewater treatment services to the Project site. As of 2013, the collection system conveys peak flows of approximately 3.16 mgd; as the SSLOCSD has a capacity of at least 5.0 mgd, the SSLOCSD currently operates at only 63 percent of its 5.0 mgd capacity. Wastewater production for all subareas is estimated at approximately 10,802.36 gpd, a value that would result in an incremental increase to wastewater flows (less than one percent) (see Table 3.11-4). Due to the facility’s relatively large remaining capacity, operation of the proposed Project would not adversely impact the SSLOCSD infrastructure and collection system, nor produce a significant increase in strain on the wastewater treatment facility. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-13 Final EIR Table 3.11-4. Projected Wastewater Production Subarea Proposed Land Use District Proposed Uses Acres Sewer Flow Factor (gpd/acre) Wastewater Produced (gpd) 1 Commercial Mixed-Use Hotel and Restaurant 2.16 4051 874.8 2 Village Residential (VR-SP) Medium Density Residential 11.62 (±0.5) 7732 8,982.3 3 Village Mixed-Use (VMU-SP) Community Center, Senior Housing, Caretaker Unit, Single Unit B&B, and Farmstand 1.51 (±0.5) 6263 945.3 Estimated Total Wastewater Production 10,802.36 1Commercial Mixed Use Sewer Flow Factor is based off of Regional Commercial Sewer Flow Factor. 2Village Residential Sewer Flow Factor is based off of Single Family Medium Density Sewer Flow Factor. 3Village Mixed Use Sewer Flow Factor is based off of Mixed-Use Sewer Flow Factor. Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2012b. To limit effects from the production of wastewater by new developments, developers are required to pay a development impact fee for the connection to a public sewer. As the Project would require the connection to the City collection system for Subareas 1 through 3, the Applicants would be subject to development impact fees implemented by the City for utility services that would offset any impacts to capacity at the SLLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, payment of development impact fees as part of standard conditions for Project approval would address potential impacts to SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity associated with the development. Impacts related to wastewater treatment of the proposed Project would therefore be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact UT-2 The proposed Project would require the expansion of existing utility infrastructure including water, sewer, gas and electricity into the site; the construction of which would cause potentially significant environmental effects (Less than Significant with Mitigation). As the Project site is not currently connected to City water supply pipelines, wastewater facilities, nor supplied by electricity and gas, and the Project requires connection to such 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR facilities in order to provide associated utility services to the Project site. New 8-inch lines would connect to existing lines that run along East Cherry Avenue. The new lines would run beneath the proposed Subarea 2 residential and collector streets; Subareas 1 and 3 would also construct utility lines connecting to existing City infrastructure in an undetermined location at this time. Construction of onsite utility lines would mainly be limited to excavation and trenching within the Project site. Due to the current and projected adequacy of the capacity of water supply and wastewater treatment services, no further construction or expansion operations would be required. Construction of utilities would occur in conformance with the Uniform Plumbing Code and City standards. Impacts from construction of utility improvements are described in other sections of this EIR (e.g. Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.4, Biological Resources, and Section 3.8, Noise) and would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts to the environment due to the construction or expansion of electricity, gas lines, water supply and wastewater facilities are focused on those construction activities occurring onsite, and impacts to the environment by these actions would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures for All Subareas MM AQ-1a-d, MM BIO-1a, and MM NOI-1a-b would apply. Residual Impact After implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts related to the construction of utilities would be less than significant. Impact UT-3 Implementation of the Project would 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 (Less than Significant). City water is provided by the Lopez Reservoir, which currently supports a safe annual yield of 8,730 afy and supplies the City with 2,290 afy. The City water supply also is supplemented by groundwater from the Santa Maria Basin and Pismo Formation, which is able to provide an additional 1,523 afy. Projected City water supply for 2020-2030 includes the estimated City build-out supply for water, and is approximately 3,813 afy. Projected water demand for the City by 2020 is 2,838 afy, well below the estimated available water supply. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-15 Final EIR Historically, given the relatively higher water demand associated with irrigated agricultural crop production, water demand for the 11.62 acres of active onsite agricultural land equates to approximately 34.86 afy based on a water use factor of 3 afy per acre. In addition, although Subarea 1 is currently fallow, this parcel was historically irrigated with an estimated 6.48 afy. Overall, the long-term historic water demand for the Project site was 41.34 afy. Water demand for the proposed Project, which includes water needs for single family residential units, gardens, parkland, hotel needs, restaurant use, and landscape irrigation is estimated at 36.22 afy. Water demand factors for the proposed Project are derived from the City of Arroyo Grande Urban Water System Master Specific Plan and are presented in Table 3.11-5. Therefore, the Project would result in a potential net decrease increase of water demand by 5.121.36 afy, Design principles for the proposed Project state that designs for the Subarea 2 and Subarea 3 developments shall incorporate water conservation designs which would reduce the estimated 36.22 afy of water demanded by the Project. These designs would include implementation of low water use fixtures and appliances, low volume irrigation systems, and appropriate landscape design incorporating drought tolerant native or non- native, non-invasive vegetation. Table 3.11-5. Projected Water Demands Subarea Proposed Land Use District Proposed Uses Quantity (# of Units) Water Use Factor Water Demand (afy) 1 Commercial Mixed-Use Hotel Units 100 0.0.092 afy/unit 9.2 Restaurant 1 (4,000 sf) 4.6 afy1 4.6 2 Village Residential (VR-SP) Medium Density Residential 58 (140 Persons) 0.34 afy/unit 19.72 3 Village Mixed- Use (VMU-SP) Visitor-Serving (Cultural archive & community center) 3,403 sf 0.06 afy/1000 sf2 0.20 Senior/Group Housing 10 0.10 afy/unit2 1.0 Caretaker’s Unit + Commercial Kitchen 1 690 sf 0.3 afy/unit + 1.32 afy/1,000 sf2 0.30 0.91 Bed and Breakfast Unit/Guest House 1 0.13 afy/unit2 0.13 Retail/Farmstand 550 sf 0.30 afy/1,000 sf2 0.16 Estimated Total Water Demand 36.22 1 Average water use factor for restaurant land uses (Communications with Taylor, City of San Luis Obispo 2016). 2 Water use factor based on Urban Water Management Plan (2012). 3 Use factor based on estimated water demand for Subarea 2 of the Project from the Initial Study (Appendix A). 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR The projected future City water supply incorporates the anticipated City build-out population. Overall, the Project would result in a slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water use typical for agricultural operations by approximately 5.12 afy. In a worst case scenario, in consideration of the current fallow status of Subarea 1, net water demand may increase approximately 1.36 afy from current conditions; however, the Project would not substantially increase City water demand, nor would it substantially decrease City water supply. Therefore, impacts to water supply would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. Impact UT-4 The proposed Project would generate additional solid waste needing disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill; however, impacts would be less than significant (Less than Significant). Solid waste generated at the Project site by residents, employees and visitors would be disposed of by South County Sanitary to the Cold Canyon Creek Landfill. The County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors approved expansion of the landfill, increasing capacity from 1,620 tpd to 2,500 tpd. The proposed Project would contribute an estimated 1,096.28 lbs of solid waste per day, equating to 0.55 tpd (Table 3.11-6). The landfill is anticipated to reach capacity in 2040 (County of San Luis Obispo 2012). As the landfill is receiving roughly 685 tpd, the waste produced by all subareas of the Project would not substantially affect the landfill’s expanded capacity or ability to comply with federal, state, or local regulations. Therefore, impacts regarding the generation of solid waste by the Project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-17 Final EIR Table 3.11-6. Estimated Solid Waste Production Subarea Proposed Land Use District Proposed Uses Quantity (# of Units) Waste Generation Factor Waste Generation (lbs/day) 1 Commercial Mixed-Use Hotel Units 100 2.0 lb/day/unit 200.0 Restaurant 4,000 sf 0.005 lb/sq ft/day 20.0 2 Village Residential (VR-SP) Medium Density Residential 58 12.23 lb/day/unit 709.34 3 Village Mixed- Use (VMU-SP) Visitor-Serving (Cultural archive & community center) 3,403 sf 0.03 lb/sq ft/day 102.09 Senior/Group Housing 10 5.1 lb/day/person 51.0 Caretaker’s Unit + Commercial Kitchen 1 690 sf 5.1 lb/day/person + 0.005 lb/sq ft/day 8.55 Bed and Breakfast Unit/Guest House 1 2.0 lb/day/unit 2.0 Retail/Farmstand 550 sf 0.006 lb/sq ft/day 3.3 Estimated Total Waste Generation 1,096.28 Source: (CalRecycle 2013a; CalRecycle 2013b; CalRecycle 2013c). Impact UT-5 The proposed Project would increase demand for fire protection, police protection, and public school services (Less than Significant). Development of the proposed Project would incrementally increase demand for both non- emergency and emergency fire protection and police protection services provided by the FCFA and Arroyo Grande Police Department respectively; however, as described above in Section 3.11.1.1, the FCFA and AGDP currently have adequate facilities and staffing levels to accommodate the slight increase in demand associated with the Project. The Project site is located within safe and timely response periods (less than 3-minute response time) for local fire and police stations and the proposed Project is not predicted impede fire and police protection services to the site. The population increase attributed to the Project could further impact enrollment capacity of local schools within the Lucia Mar Unified School District. As discussed earlier, schools within the Lucia Mar Unified School District are operating at or above enrollment capacities. Sections 41376 and 41378 of the California Education Code list standards for class sizes in every school district (refer to Section 3.11.2, Regulatory Setting). The Lucia Mar Unified School District average student-to-teacher ratio is 23.00, a value less than the 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES 3.11-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR ratio requirement established by the California EC. While the schools expected to service the Project site are at or above capacity, those schools are within California EC requirements and the addition of pupils generated by this site will not significantly impact current student-to-teacher ratios. Pursuant to SB 50, impacts on schools are considered to be less than significant with payment of development fees to the School District, which was established to provide for school facilities construction, improvements, and expansion, or equivalent fee as adopted by a local school district in accordance with SB 50. A developmental impact fee (Level 1/Statutory Developer Fee) is required by the Lucia Mar School District for any residential or commercial/industrial development at a cost of $3.36 and $0.54 per square foot respectively (Lucia Mar Unified School District 2016b). Due to the minimal impacts to public services caused by the addition of residents by the Project and required development impact fees, impacts to these services would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures required. 3.11.5 Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the incremental increase in demand for water supply, stormwater and wastewater management, and the supply of utilities (e.g. electricity, gas, and cable). Cumulative impacts to utility and public services are largely related to City-wide population growth and development. Under the 2001 General Plan Update, facilities providing these services have anticipated the demand of these services for the build-out population of the City, and are prepared to adequately supply these services with regard to current and future developments and planned growth anticipated under the current General Plan for a population up to 20,000. As described in Section 3.11.1, Environmental Setting, existing public services including schools, police, and fire protection services and existing utility services including water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste, and energy services are all currently operating under capacity, and have sufficient remaining capacity to absorb cumulative increases in demand as projected under the General Plan. Water supply availability at full buildout of the General Plan is anticipated to be 3,813 afy, which is below the anticipated demand of 2,813 afy in 2020 (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). Wastewater treatment within the district is only operating at 63 percent of its total capacity, and the Cold Canyon landfill has been approved to expand its capacity to 2,500 tpd. As such, utility infrastructure within the region has 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 3.11-19 Final EIR sufficient remaining capacity to account for cumulative increases in demand resulting from development anticipated under the General Plan. Planned and pending development in the City includes multiple mixed-use commercial and residential projects. These projects are also expected to increase residential units and contribute to additional population increases in the City, thereby increasing demand for the City’s utility infrastructure and public services. Implementation of this Project and other proposed or current projects in Table 3.0-1 within the range of these services would increase the demand on utilities and public services; however, these projects would be required to comply with standards for adequate public services utilities set forth in the City’s General Plan, would be subject to City planning and review processes that would ensure that adequate utility infrastructure, and public services are in place to support increased demand and in compliance with General Plan Policy S3-2. Developers would be required to pay development impact fees to offset any impacts to utility and public service infrastructure and capacities. As such, cumulatively the Project would not result in any significant or adverse effects on the supply of these services. Therefore, the cumulative impact of this Project and projects (listed in Table 3.0-1) within the vicinity would be less than significant. 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-1 Final EIR 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.2(c) requires that irretrievable commitments of resources be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. This includes use of nonrenewable resources, the commitment of future generations to similar uses, and irreversible damage, which can result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. Construction of new buildings and paved surfaces would involve consumption of building materials and energy, some of which are nonrenewable or locally limited natural resources (e.g., fossil fuels and wood). Nonrenewable resources used for the proposed Project could no longer be used for other purposes. Consumption of building materials and energy is associated with any development in the region, and these commitments of resources are not unique or unusual to the proposed Project. The proposed Project would represent an incremental commitment to long-term use of nonrenewable resources, particularly gasoline for substantially increased automobile use and oil, coal, and natural gas for power generation. Although not unique to the proposed Project, the auto-oriented nature of the proposed Project would result in the consumption of additional energy, particularly gasoline and electricity. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, use of each of these forms of non-renewable energy would contribute to the generation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) with an incremental contribution to global climate change. Thus while Project energy demand and use of non-renewable sources itself would not be significant, it would incrementally contribute to resultant secondary impacts to other resources. Implementation of the proposed Project would irreversibly commit 14.0 acres of prime soils from active agricultural production to residential and mixed-use development. The proposed Project would commit future generations to similar uses. However, the irretrievable commitment of this site for these uses is considered justified given that the site is surrounded by existing development and would have access to City services (e.g., wastewater). Further, Subarea 3 is expected to provide educational, cultural, and commercial purposes for the community and future generations through the development of senior housing, native and cultural gardens, and educational opportunities for Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association members, as well as the greater community. 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 4-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR The proposed Project would not be expected to result in environmental accidents that have the potential to cause irreversible damage to the natural or human environment such as a release of hazardous materials. 4.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of how the proposed Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Induced growth is distinguished from the direct economic, population, or housing growth of a project. Induced growth is any growth that results from new development that would not have taken place in the absence of the project and that exceeds planned growth. CEQA Guidelines also state that growth in any area should not be assumed to be necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Growth-inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster or encourage population and/or economic growth. Inducements to growth include the generation of construction and permanent employment opportunities in the support sectors of the economy. The proposed Project could result in four types of growth-inducing impacts: 1) the creation of short- and long-term employment opportunities which draw newcomers to the region; 2) the associated increase in housing demand; 3) the generation of new commercial and tourist accommodations to entice people to the area; and 4) the extension of City infrastructure into areas where such infrastructure does not currently exist. 4.2.1 Employment Generation The proposed Project would generate long-term employment opportunities through the development of a hotel and restaurant on Subarea 1, and the general retail aspect associated with the development of Subarea 3. It is not known how many of these new workers would in-migrate or be new to the community, but it is assumed that construction and operation of the Project would draw workers from the existing regional work force. 4.2.2 Population and Housing Generation The proposed Project would introduce 58 new single-family residential units, resulting in a corresponding population increase of 140 residents based on a ratio of 2.4 people per housing unit in Arroyo Grande in 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015). This Project, as well as a majority of other pending/approved projects in the local area would result in the 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-3 Final EIR development of residential units throughout the City. These developments would affect the current City population by introducing new residents to the City. The 1990 General Plan identifies the build-out population of 19,500 individuals. The 2001 General Plan update identified an increase in the City’s population from the 2001 baseline of approximately 16,000 individuals to a year 2021 population of 20,000. Currently, population and economic impacts associated with new housing developments are accounted for in the General Plan, which would accommodate population growth of approximately 1,500 individuals by 2021 (City of Arroyo Grande 2001). 4.2.3 Tourist Accommodation Generation With the development of an additional 100-room hotel and detached 4,000 square foot (sf) restaurant, visitor, and tourist accommodations would increase. A new hotel and restaurant development could attract tourists and travelers to the area and generate additional revenue for local businesses. Associated increases in visitors could potentially result in increased traffic and use of public facilities and services. As Subarea 1 is designated for automobile- oriented services, the development of hotel and restaurant uses would generate employment and temporary populations, and has the potential to incrementally induce temporary population growth. 4.2.4 Extension of Infrastructure Development of the three subareas of the Project site would require extension of City infrastructure into the site, including the development of an onsite collector road and bicycle path in between Subareas 1 and 2. This new collector road is potentially growth inducing as the collector road would facilitate growth in the adjacent hillside neighborhood located along the Project site’s southern boundary. The proposed collector road and bicycle path would provide access to, and facilitate the development of additional roadways and construction along the hillside. However, the potential development of this hillside is proposed under the proposed update for the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan, Circulation Element. This growth is anticipated by the City. 4.3 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT CEQA Guidelines state that the EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various potentially significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR (Section 15128). After standard regulatory conditions and/or mitigation measures are applied, several resource areas were found to be below a level of significance, as identified in the Initial Study Checklist 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 4-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR (Appendix A). Some of these issues have been reassessed in this EIR, and further analysis resulted in mitigation measures provided as appropriate. Results of the environmental analyses are either presented in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, or discussed below. 4.3.1 Cultural Resources Project impacts to cultural resources were identified in the Initial Study Checklist (Appendix A) as being less than significant with mitigation. The Project would not be located within a Historic District. While there were no recorded cultural resources found within the Project site, seven archaeological sites are recorded within a 0.5 mile-radius of the Project site, with two of the sites located within 328 feet of the site. Subarea 3 of the Project site, known as the JWA property, is regarded as an important location relative to the settlement history of Japanese Americans in the City. Development of Subarea 3 intends to raise awareness of this history. Several searches for cultural resources were conducted within close proximity to the Project site. The presence of two shell middens were detected within the vicinity, but no cultural remains associated with these sites were identified during subsurface testing of the sites. Further cultural resource studies were conducted within a 0.25 mile radius but no significant cultural resources were identified. The Northern Chumash community was consulted in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. Tribal representatives were contacted and notified about the proposed project and findings of the related records search and field surveys. Interested Northern Chumash representatives included individuals and groups identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who had historical ties to the Project site. Mona Olivas Tucker and Fred Collins, respective representatives of the yak tityu – Northern Chumash Tribe and the Northern Chumash Tribe Council, requested that the Project site be inspected by a qualified archaeologist and a Northern Chumash community member during the initial excavation phase to confirm the absence of potential burial sites. These recommendations are incorporated as Project mitigation measures in the Initial Study. Should potential archaeological or paleontological resources be discovered during site preparation or construction, activities would cease until such resources are evaluated for their nature, integrity, and significance, as described in mitigation measures MM CR-1 and MM CR-2 of the Initial Study. 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-5 Final EIR 4.3.2 Geological Resources The Initial Study identifies Project impacts upon geological resources as less than significant impacts with mitigation. The City is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing. The Wilmar Avenue fault is a potentially active fault line adjacent to the City. According to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the Wilmar Avenue Fault poses a moderate potential fault rupture hazards to the City. The Project site lies within an area identified as having a moderate liquefaction potential (City of Arroyo Grande 2001). Potential soil hazards could arise in the form of slope stability issues along the southern edge of the site, where high landslide potential has been identified offsite. The Project site is located in an area that has been identified as having a moderate to high potential for expansion, but with prescribed mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts will be reduced below a significant level. The report indicates that any potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with compliance with the California Building Standards Code, Title 24 (Title 24), the City Development Code, and the prescribed mitigation listed in the Initial Study, which includes preparation of geotechnical studies and incorporation of applicable standards that address the potential for expansive soils, soil settlement, and subsidence. 4.3.3 Mineral Resources No known mineral resources are associated with the project site; therefore, no impact to mineral resources are expected from the proposed Project. 4.3.4 Population and Housing The proposed Project’s 58 lot residential subdivision on Subarea 2 and 15-unit senior housing development on Subarea 3 are expected to be aligned with local and regional growth projections and further, would meet the goals established in the Housing Element of the General Plan and State Housing Element laws, including provision of special needs housing for senior citizens. The City plans for build-out to 2020, with an estimated population growth of approximately 3,000 individuals, resulting in a build-out population of approximately 20,000 individuals. As such, a less than significant impact is anticipated and the issue will not be evaluated any further. 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 4-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 4.4 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(b) requires a description of any significant impacts resulting from implementation of a project, including impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. The proposed Project was evaluated with respect to specific resource areas to determine whether implementation would result in significant adverse impacts. A detailed discussion of each of the impacts can be found in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. Specific significance thresholds were defined for each potential impact associated with each resource area. Based on the environmental impact assessment presented in the relative sections of this EIR, the resource areas of aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, agricultural resources, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning policies, noise, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and public services would result in less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation, with implementation of the proposed Project. Mitigation measures were developed that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. However, the following impacts cannot be mitigated below a level of significance: • Significant and unavoidable impacts caused by Project operational air quality emissions; • Air quality impact inconsistencies with assumptions in the County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP); and, • Significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic flow at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection, resulting in an LOS F rating in both the AM and PM peak hours. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, when an EIR demonstrates that implementation of a proposed project will cause significant unmitigable impacts, the agency must issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations before approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is a report of the lead agency’s findings regarding the merits of approving a proposed project despite its environmental impacts, and reflects the balancing of competing public objectives. The City of Arroyo Grande will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address the unmitigable impacts listed above. In this instance, the City may weigh the long-term benefits of the project, such as provision of a mix of housing types, dedication of a new public neighborhood park, improvements to road and bikeway systems, development of visitor serving commercial uses that could contribute sales tax revenue, in light of the potentially significant air quality emissions and 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-7 Final EIR circulation impacts created by the Project. To facilitate consideration of these issues, this EIR discloses potential impacts and also provides a range of project alternatives which could more fully alleviate environmental concerns. In addition, Section 3.7, Land Use, provides an overview of the City’s policy context, which provides information on how the project meets a number of important city policy objectives and where it may raise concerns over consistency with other city policies. All of this information should be reviewed when considering this Project. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-1 Final EIR 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (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). The CEQA Guidelines state that “the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project (Section 15126.6). In defining feasibility of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines state that “among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site” (Section 15126.6). The alternatives must adequately represent the spectrum of environmental concerns in order to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives. The EIR must also provide the rationale for selecting or defining the alternatives evaluated throughout the document, including identifying any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. The alternatives analysis for this EIR is presented in four major parts. The first section describes the objectives of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project (Project). The second section summarizes the potentially significant unavoidable short- and long-term impacts of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project from information presented in Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. The third section discusses potential impacts under the Project alternatives. The final section concludes with the selection of an environmentally superior alternative, based on the Project configuration with the fewest significant impacts while meeting the greatest number of Project objectives. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary applicants and City objectives of the Project are discussed in Section 2.5 and summarized below. Objective #1. To designate appropriate land uses and design guidelines within the Specific Plan that will guide future development within the Project site; Objective #2. To provide for historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that both complement and augment the existing uses in the City; Objective #3. To comply with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy AG 14.2 with the protection and preservation of offsite agricultural lands; Objective #4. To set forth a development plan(s) capable of underwriting the cost of public and private infrastructure and capital improvements proposed as part of the Specific Plan; and, Objective #5. To promote orderly and attractive community development in the context of existing neighborhoods and in recognition of future development in the vicinity. 5.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE PROJECT IMPACTS 5.3.1 Long-Term Impacts 5.3.1.1 Air Quality Emissions Long-term operational air quality emissions associated with the Project would marginally exceed the San Luis Obispo’s Air Pollution Control District’s (APCD’s) operational threshold for combined reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM2.5) after the implementation of mitigation measures, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality emissions and potential inconsistency with the County of San Luis Obispo’s Clean Air Plan (CAP). 5.3.1.2 Transportation and Traffic Long-term operational impacts from the proposed Project would contribute to the projected AM and PM peak hour LOS 'F' at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection and increase delay by more than 5 seconds in each peak hour, resulting in a significant and 5.0 ALTERNATIVES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-3 Final EIR unavoidable impact as no feasible mitigation is available to reduce traffic impacts at this intersection. 5.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This section 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; and, • Reduced Development Alternative. 5.4.1 Alternatives Considered but Discarded As discussed above, CEQA Section 15126.6(c) requires that an EIR disclose alternatives that were considered and discarded and provide a brief explanation as to why such alternatives were not fully considered in the EIR. In particular, as required by the State CEQA Guidelines, the selection of alternatives included a screening process to determine which alternatives could reduce significant effects but also feasibly meet Project objectives. The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis by the Lead Agency due to infeasibility, inconsistency with primary Project objectives, or inability to reduce significant impacts. 5.4.1.1 Other Comparable Sites Alternative This alternative involves review of the potential to construct a development of similar size and scale as the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan at alternative locations, thereby lessening or avoiding site-specific impacts to traffic, agriculture, and other resource areas. Under the Other Comparable Sites Alternative, the proposed Project would be located at another large, predominantly vacant property to meet the Project’s objectives of providing a historical, recreational, and residential development. Potential offsite alternative locations were screened for consideration based on size requirements (approximately 15 acres) and objectives for residential and commercial development, similar to the proposed Project. However, a limited number of undeveloped, comparatively sized, infill sites were identified within City limits as a result of the screening process. Potential sites generally consisted of other agricultural parcels located along the City boundary, which would not necessarily result in a reduction of impacts to agricultural 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR resources or land use. Larger agricultural parcels located west of the Project site, on the opposite side of U.S. Highway 101, are located adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School and Arroyo Grande Creek, and could potentially result in increased traffic congestion, as well as impacts to hydrology and water quality, and biological resources. In addition, the historical use objective met by the proposed JWA mixed cultural development in Subarea 3 could not be realized at an alternate location due to its ties with the historical Japanese- American cultural activities that took place specifically at the proposed Project site. Therefore, this alternative was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). 5.4.1.2 Circulation Planning Alternative An alternative circulation plan to avoid or lessen traffic and transportation safety impacts was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project, including realignment of onsite roadways and/or connection points to surrounding roadways, as well as, improved connectivity for onsite and offsite pedestrian and bike facilities. Project impacts to site access, connectivity, and safety were determined to be less than significant; however, contribution to AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) ‘F’ impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection were determined to be significant and unavoidable under this alternative and would not be reduced compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). 5.4.1.3 Agricultural Preserve Alternative Preservation of the Project site solely for agricultural production, facilitated through an agricultural preserve designation, was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan/Land Use Map designation intended for traffic mixed-use development in Subarea 1, and therefore, would require a General Plan amendment. In addition, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives, which include the provision of historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that complement and augment existing uses in the City. From a land use perspective, the City’s General Plan identifies Subarea 1 as being appropriate for development over the long term. Finally, this alternative would not be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts since the proposed Project would meet City policies through agricultural land dedication and payment of in-lieu mitigation fees. Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). 5.0 ALTERNATIVES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-5 Final EIR 5.4.1.4 Additional Park and Recreational Facilities Development of a portion of the Project site (Subarea 1) for additional park and recreational facilities was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project. Possible use as a community park would include development of ball fields, picnic areas, and other major park facilities. This would increase the ratio of park land acres per resident as required by policies and standards in the City’s General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan/ Land Use Map for Subarea 1, and would not be necessary since the proposed Project could meet City park standards and reduce potentially significant impacts by dedicating and improvement the proposed neighborhood park and through payment of in-lieu mitigation fees. Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c). 5.4.2 Alternatives Considered for Analysis 5.4.2.1 No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be approved and no proposed development would occur. 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. Under this alternative, ongoing agricultural production would continue in Subarea 2 and 3, with associated water use, application of pesticides and herbicides and other ongoing impacts (e.g., dust generation). Subarea 3 would retain its agricultural zoning and would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. Subarea 1 may remain a fallow agricultural field unless agricultural uses are resumed. No new hotel/restaurant or residences would be constructed and no associated new source of automobile trips would be generated with impacts to congestion, air pollutants, and GHG emissions. In addition, the Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) cultural heritage and historic garden facility would not be developed. Therefore, no changes would occur with regard to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, transportation and traffic, or utilities and public services. 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. The City’s General Plan/Land Use Map identifies the Project site land use as Mixed-Use 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR (Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2 and 3), and defines residential densities, subdivision designs, envisioned mixed uses, and design standards to address land use compatibility between varied uses onsite and with the surrounding neighborhood. The current zoning designation for the Project site is Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) with D- 2.11 Design Overlay (Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2 and 3), consistent with the City’s General Plan. Under this version of the No Project Alternative, ongoing agricultural production would continue within Subareas 2 and 3; however, potential development of Subarea 1 could result in a variety of automobile-related developments (e.g., automobile sales, automobile parts sales, tire store, quick vehicle lubrication shop, and automobile care center), ranging from approximately 13,000 to 38,000 square feet (sf) of floor area, as intended by the zone designation, or other mixed-use commercial/retail uses under a use permit, including hotel/restaurant, similar to the proposed Project. Environmental impacts similar to the proposed Project would occur as a result of hotel/restaurant development in Subarea 1 under a conditional use permit (CUP) (i.e., significant and unavoidable impacts to LOS at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection from the new source of automobile trips). Impacts to the Project site as a whole would be reduced compared to the Project. In addition, impacts to agricultural resources and land use would be less than significant, as development of Subarea 1 for this use would be consistent with existing land use and zoning. While this Subarea contains prime farmland soils, the site is designated for development, and loss of these soils is already anticipated in plans for City build-out. Impacts to other resource areas, including aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation, and utilities and public services would be less than under the proposed Project and would have less than significant impacts. 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 air quality emissions. As the No Project Alternative would not involve the development of Subareas 2 and 3, operational air quality emissions would be reduced and would be below APCD’s air quality emissions thresholds and would achieve greater consistently with the CAP; however, traffic impacts would still potentially be significant under the No Project Alternative, in particular, LOS at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection. 5.4.2.2 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 5.0 ALTERNATIVES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-7 Final EIR 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. Under this alternative, reductions within the hotel/restaurant component in Subarea 1 and the residential component in Subarea 2 would reduce the number of hotel rooms/restaurant size and the number of residences compared to the proposed Project. The specific square footage and number of units reduced under this alternative was determined based on trip reduction necessary to reduce potential impacts at the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection from a less than significant unavoidable impact with mitigation under the proposed Project, to a less than significant impact with mitigation. • Subarea 1. Based on a traffic level reduction required to reduce impacts to the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection, the proposed number of hotel rooms in Subarea 1 would be reduced from approximately 100 to 70, and the restaurant size would be reduced from approximately 4,000 to 3,000 sf. • Subarea 2. Based on traffic level reduction required to reduce impacts to the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection, the number of proposed residences in Subarea 2 would be reduced from 58 to 40. • Subarea 3. Development within Subarea 3 would the same as under the proposed Project. Based on these development reductions and a traffic rate of 8.92 trips/unit/day, traffic generated by the development of a 70 unit hotel would result in a total of 624.4 trips per day, with an AM peak trip level of 46.9 and a PM peak trip level of 70.7. For the Subarea 2 development, a traffic rate of 9.52 trips/unit/day for a 40 housing units would equate to a total of 380.3 trips per day, with an AM peak trip level of 30.0 and a PM peak trip level of 40.0. Under these reduced development plans, total trips per day would be reduced by approximately 449 trips/day, from a total of 1,646 trips/day generated under the proposed Project, to 1,197 trips/day, with an AM peak trip level of 76 and a PM peak trip level of 104 for the Project. Initial traffic analysis indicates that the reductions in hotel rooms/restaurant size and residences under this alternative would reduce delays and congestion the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection to a less than significant impact, and implementation of any mitigations measures required under the proposed Project would not be required. Despite a reduction in trips generated by reduced development of the Project, implementation of this alternative would not reduce traffic impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection below a significant and unavoidable impact; 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR therefore, impacts at this intersection would remain the same as those anticipated under the proposed project. In addition, reduced employment could incrementally reduce long- distance commuting. Therefore, this alternative would reduce, but not eliminate all of the proposed Project’s significant impacts to traffic and transportation. Short-term air quality impacts would be slightly less than those described for the proposed Project as a result of decreased construction building size for the hotel/restaurant and number of residences, but remain less than significant with mitigations. Operational air quality impacts would be reduced as smaller development would result in fewer automobile trips for hotel/restaurant patrons and residents, and a decrease in air pollutants and GHG emissions when compared to the proposed Project. With the reduction in daily trips due to reduced development of the Project, this alternative would further reduce operational air quality emissions, and impacts would potentially be less than significant. This alternative would also potentially achieve CAP consistency if standard mitigation measures within the CAP are applied. Visual impacts would be slightly less than under the proposed Project due to the decrease in square footage of new building space and resulting views of a reduced scale and intensity development from U.S. Highway 101 and surrounding streets. Lighting and glare impacts would also be somewhat less due to the decreased amount of development in proximity to the existing residential uses surrounding the site. Similar to the proposed Project, standards for outdoor lighting would be applied, per Section 16.48.090 of the City Municipal Code, and exterior light fixtures would be shielded and directed downward to avoid light spill and glare, per Project Design Guidelines and General Plan Policy Ag/C/OS.23. Overall aesthetics impacts would remain less than significant. Short- and long-term noise impacts associated with reduced development of Subarea 1 (i.e., construction, maintenance and pickup/delivery activities, and noise-generating rooftop equipment such as air conditioners or kitchen ventilation systems) would be slightly less than under the proposed Project due to the reduced development size and close proximity of residential units onsite. Mitigation measures listed within Section 3.8, Noise, would continue to be applied to this alternative in order to reduce impacts to below a less than significant level. Similarly, impacts to utilities and public services would slightly decrease with the reduced hotel rooms/restaurant size and dwelling units requiring water, wastewater, solid waste, and police and fire services, and would be less than significant. Impacts to recreation, associated with the City’s required parkland-resident ratio of 4 acres per 1,000 individuals, would be reduced due to the decrease in residential units and 5.0 ALTERNATIVES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-9 Final EIR individuals. The number of single-family medium-density residences in Subarea 2 would be reduced from 58 to 40, with an associated reduction in individuals from 140 to 96. Under this alternative, the estimated 96 new residents would require 0.38 acres of parkland to meet City standards. Therefore, the proposed Project’s development of a 0.35-acre neighborhood park within Subarea 2 would require the dedication of an additional 0.03 acres of parkland. Similar to the proposed Project, mitigation for payment of a park improvement in-lieu fee equal to the fair market land value, plus twenty (20) percent toward the cost of offsite improvement, for the additional 0.03 acres of parkland would reduce impacts to less than significant. Impacts to agriculture, biology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and land use under the Reduced Development Alternative would be slightly less or similar to those described for the proposed Project. All proposed Project mitigation measures would also apply under this alternative. Overall, this alternative would reduce impacts to transportation and GHG emissions. However, LOS impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street would continue to be significant and unavoidable. 5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table 5-1 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 5-1 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 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. Therefore, because 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 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 5-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR the environmentally superior alternative. Table 5-1. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project Resource Proposed Project Residual Impact No Project Reduced Development Aesthetics Less than Significant Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant) Agricultural Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Air Quality & GHG Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Less (Less than Significant) Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Biological Resources Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Hazards & Hazardous Materials Less than Significant with Mitigation Similar (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Land Use Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Similar (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Noise Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (Less than Significant) Slightly Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Recreation Less than Significant with Mitigation Less (No Impact) Less (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Transportation & Traffic Significant and Unavoidable Less (Significant and Unavoidable) Less (Significant and Unavoidable) Utilities & Public Services Less than Significant Less (Less than Significant) Slightly Less (Less than Significant) Project Objectives Met? Yes No Yes 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 6-1 Final EIR 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS City of Arroyo Grande Teresa McClish Community Development Director John Rickenbach JFR Consulting Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure, Inc. Rita Bright EIR Project Manager Julia Pujo Deputy Project Manager Dan Gira QA/QC Technical Editor Linn Zukor Senior Environmental Planner Nick Meisinger Senior Environmental Planner Taylor Lane Environmental Analyst Laura Ingulsrud Environmental Analyst Holly Ayala Environmental Analyst Steve Ochs Senior Air Quality Specialist Brian Cook Senior Noise Specialist Janice Depew Word Processor Graphics Consultant Deirdre Stites Graphics Specialist 7.0 REFERENCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-1 Final EIR 7.0 REFERENCES SECTION 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES California Department of Transportation. 2015. “Scenic Highway Program.” http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/mtce/scenic.htm. City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “General Plan Integrated Program EIR.” SECTION 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES California Department of Conservation. 1997. “California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2015. “City of Arroyo Grande (07-28-2015) Ag Supplement Memo.” County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures. 2015. “San Luis Obispo County 2014 Crop Statistic.” Department of Conservation. 2010. “San Luis Obispo County Williamson Act FY 2009/2010.” Department of Conservation. 2012. “San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland 2012.” Laura A. Pennebaker. 2009. “Agricultural Buffer Cirteria for the City of Arroyo Grande.” NRCS. 2015. “Ag Soils Report.” SECTION 3.3 AIR QUALITY Air Resources Board. 2015. “Top 4 Summary Pollutant/Year Range Selection.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. California Regional Assessment Group. 2002. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. September. EPA. 2012. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion - Million Metric Tons CO2 (MMTCO2). EPA. 2015. State Energy CO2 Emissions. July 8. Accessed August 10, 2015. http://epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/state_energyco2inv.html. EPA. 2015. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. January 1. Accessed August 10, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. San Lius Obispo APCD. 2012. "CEQA Air Quality Handbook - A guide for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review." Accessed January 22, 2016. 7.0 REFERENCES 7-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR http://www.prcity.com/government/departments/commdev/planning/pdf/CEQA_ Handbook_2012_v1.pdf. San Luis Obispo. 2013. “San Luis Obispo Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status.” U.S. EPA. 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed August 10, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG- Inventory-2015-Main-Text.pdf. SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CDFW. 2015a. “California Natural Diversity Database Home.” https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/. CDFW. 2015b. “Special Animals List.” CDFW. 2015c. “Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.” CDFW. 2015d. “State & Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California.” CDFW. 2015e. “State & Federally Listed Endangered & Threatened Animals of California.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2007. “Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element.” CNDDB. 2016. “Special Animals List - California Natural Diversity Database.” file:///C:/Users/laura.ingulsrud/Downloads/CNDDB_Special_Animals_List.pdf. CNPS. 2015a. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - CNPS.” http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. CNPS. 2015b. “Rare Plant Program - California Native Plant Society.” http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php. Erin M. Hanlon. 2015. “E. Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, Arroyo Grande - The ‘Ditch,’” September 24. Sage Institute, Inc. (SII). 2015. “Biological Resources Assessment for the City of Arroyo Grande East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan.” USFWS. 2015a. “IPaC: Resources - My Project.” https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/4O5FTX7YNNDA3NZOENYMHIVP44/resour ces. USFWS. 2015b. “National Wetlands Inventory Home Page.” http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. 7.0 REFERENCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-3 Final EIR SECTION 3.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Buenaresources. 2014. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. June. 2014. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for East Cherry Avenue Property located in Arroyo Grande, CA. June Buenaresources. 2014. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for East Cherry Avenue Property located in Arroyo Grande, CA. June Cal Fire. 2007. “FRAP Fire Hazzard Severity Zones in SRA.” Cal Fire. 2009. “FRAP Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA.” CDFFP. 2005. “San Luis Obispo Fire Management Plan.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “Safety Element.” DSTC. 2015. “GeoTracker.” Accessed December 22. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=140+Ea st+Cherry+Ave%2C+Arroyo+Grande%2C+CA. USEPA. 2015a. “Learn About Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) | Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) | US EPA.” Accessed December 22. http://www.epa.gov/ust/learn-about-underground-storage-tanks-usts. USEPA. 2015b. “Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program | US EPA.” Accessed December 22. http://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program. SECTION 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Central Coast Salmon Enhancement. 2005. “Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2012. “Urban Water Management Plan.” Department of Water Resources. 2002. “DWR - Southern Region - Arroyo Grande - Nipomo Mesa.” http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/maps_and_reports/southern_region/Ground waterQuality/arroyo_grande/arroyo_grande-nipomo_mesa.html. FEMA. 2015. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center : Search By Address | FEMA.gov.” https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=100%20East%20Cherry%20A ve.%2C%20Arroyo%20Grande#searchresultsanchor. GeoSolution, Inc. 2015. “East Cherry Avenue Numerical Slope Stability Evaluation.” RRM Design Group. 2015. “Preliminary Hydrology Report.” 7.0 REFERENCES 7-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR RRM Design Group. 2016. “East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 1 Hydrology Report Preliminary. San Luis Obispo FCWCD. 2014. “San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan.” http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Frequent%20Downloads/Integrated%20Regio nal%20Water%20Management%20Plan/IRWM%20Plan%20Update%202014/. US-LT Resource Conservation District. 2015. “Arroyo Grande Creek | SLO Watershed Project.” http://slowatershedproject.org/watersheds/arroyo-grande-creek/. Waterways Consulting, Inc. 2010. “Arroyo Grande Creek Channel Waterway Management Program.” SECTION 3.7 LAND USE City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “Circulation Element.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “Noise Element.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “Safety Element.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “Fringe and Urban Area Land Element.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2007. “Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2013. “Housing Element.” SECTION 3.8 NOISE California Department of Transportation. 1998. “Technical Noise Supplement.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “Noise Element.” FHWA. 2014. “Traffic Noise Model - Noise - Environment - FHWA.” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/. Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a. “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.” May. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006b. “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.” May. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2012. “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.” 7.0 REFERENCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-5 Final EIR USEPA. 1974. “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.” http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. SECTION 3.9 RECREATION City of Arroyo Grande. 2013. “City of Arroyo Grande Inventory of City-Maintained Parks, Landscape Areas, and Open Space (Revised September 2013).” City of Arroyo Grande. 2015. “Arroyo Grande, CA - Official Website.” http://www.arroyogrande.org/Facilities. U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. “Arroyo Grande (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602868.html. SECTION 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. “Circulation Element.” Omni-Means. 2015. “Transportation Impact Analysis.” SLOCOG. 2014a. “Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)-Sustainable Communities Strategy San Luis Obispo County.” https://library.slocog.org/PDFS/RTP/2014RTPFinal/00_Complete_Contents_SLO COG2014RTP.pdf. SLOCOG. 2014b. “US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan San Luis Obispo County.” https://library.slocog.org/PDFS/Planning/101%20Corridor%20Study%202014/SL OCOG%20US%20101%20Mobility%20Study%20Final.pdf. SLORTA. 2015. “Schedules & Fares.” http://www.slorta.org/schedules-fares/. South County Transit. 2015. “South County Transit Routes.” TRB. 2010. “2010 Highway Capacity Manual.” SECTION 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES CalRecycle. 2013a. “Commercial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Commercial.htm. 7.0 REFERENCES 7-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR CalRecycle. 2013b. “Residential Developments: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Residential.htm. CalRecycle. 2013c. “Service Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Service.htm. CEC. 2013. “California Energy Demand 2014-2024 Final Forecast.” CEC. 2015a. “California Electricity & Natural Gas Consumption Data.” http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. CEC. 2015b. “Total Electricity System Power.” http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html. City of Arroyo Grande. 2012a. “Urban Water Management Plan.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2012b. “Wastewater System Master Plan.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2013. “Housing Element.” County of San Luis Obispo. 2012. “Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion EIR.” FCFA. 2015a. “About - Five Cities Fire Authority.” Accessed December 21. http://fivecitiesfireauthority.org/about. FCFA. 2015b. “Services - Five Cities Fire Authority.” Accessed December 21. http://fivecitiesfireauthority.org/services. Linda Cox. 2015. Arroyo Grande Police Department Response Time Phone Call with Linda Cox at 2:30 PM December 22, 2015. Lucia Mar Unified School District. 2016. “Lucia Mar Unified School District.” http://www.luciamarschools.org/the-district/. Lucia Mar Unified School District. 2016b. “Lucia Mar Unified School District » FAQ.” http://www.luciamarschools.org/business-office/business-office-faq/. NCES. 2015. “Search for Public School Districts - District Detail for Lucia Mar Unified.” http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=0623080. Oasis Associates, Inc. 2015. “Draft East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan.” South County Sanitary. 2015. “South County Sanitary.” Accessed December 21. http://southcountysanitary.com/default.aspx. SSLOCSD. 2014. “Collection System.” http://sslocsd.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43:collection -system&catid=28:collection-system&Itemid=127. 7.0 REFERENCES East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-7 Final EIR Steve Lieberman. 2015. Five Cities Fire Authority Response Time Phone Call with Steve Lieberman at 2:43 PM December 22, 2015. SECTION 4.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS City of Arroyo Grande. 2001a. “General Plan Integrated Program EIR.” City of Arroyo Grande. 2001b. “Safety Element.” U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. “Arroyo Grande (city) QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602868.html. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-1 Final EIR 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Section 8 is organized as follows: 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Format of the Response to Comments: This section describes the format and organization of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the responses to those comments. 8.3 Index of Comments Received: This section provides a list of the comments received on the Draft EIR by a member of the public, agency, company, or organization, and lists the unique number for each commenter. 8.4 Response to Comments: This section provides individual responses to comments provided in letters and oral testimony. 8.5 Public Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period: This section provides comment letters received after the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR for informational purposes. No response to comments are required by CEQA; however, the City has provided for these letters as a courtesy. 8.1 INTRODUCTION Comments received during the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR, ending May 26, 2016, included written comments from nine individuals, one agency, as well as the Applicant. Oral testimonies were received from three individuals, along with the Applicant and four Planning Commissioners during a public workshop held on May 17, 2016. In accordance with 2016 CEQA Statute and Guidelines, this section provides a written response to each of these received comments, and describes any revisions to the EIR due to accepted comments and suggestions as well as reasoned analysis in response to specific comments and suggestions that were not accepted. In addition, five written comment letters and emails were received by individuals after the close of the public comment period on May 26, 2016. Comment letters that were received after the close of the formal public comment period have been also included at the end of this section. 8.2 FORMAT OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Comments received on the Draft EIR are organized by written comments, then oral testimonies. Each comment letter or e-mail, and testimony is assigned a unique number with each comment individually numbered as well. Individual comments and issues within each comment letter or e-mail are numbered individually along the margins in Section 8.3. For example, Comment 2-1 is the first substantive comment in Comment Letter 2; “2” represents the commenter; the “1” refers to the first comment in that letter. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 8.3 INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Table 8-1 lists all agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals that provided written and oral comments on the Draft EIR. As described above, each comment letter was assigned a unique number. Table 8-1. Index of Comments Received on the Draft EIR Commenter Number Name of Commenter Comment and Response to Comment Location Organizations 1. Brubaker, Jeff – San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 8-5 Individuals 2. Albert, Colleen 8-7 3. Bachmann, Anne 8-9 4. Clift, Warren 8-11 5. Ingham, Doug 8-13 6. Jones, Daniel 8-16 7. Joralemon, Gary 8-19 8. Lori (no last name provided) 8-21 9. Schmidt, Marilyn 8-23 10. Zammit, Kent and Sue 8-25 Applicant 11. C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc. 8-37 Oral Testimonies at Public Hearing (May 17, 2016) 12. Commissioner John Mack 8-34 13. Commissioner Terry Fowler-Payne 8-35 14. Commissioner Glenn Martin 8-35 15. Commissioner John Keen 8-36 16. Osty, Linda 8-36 17. C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc. 8-37 18. Bennett, Minetta 8-37 19. Gibson, Shirley 8-38 Public Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period 20. Austin, Don and Joanne 8-45 21. Hedderig, Bruce 8-47 22. Keating, Linda 8-50 23. Nichols, Ann 8-53 24. Osty, Linda and Kent and Sue Zammit 8-57 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-3 Final EIR 8.4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following pages contain copies of the comment letters. Presented first is a copy of the comment letter with vertical lines indicating the extent of specific numbered comments, and on the subsequent pages are the corresponding numbered responses to individual comments. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 8.4.1 Organizations [Insert Comment Letter 1, Jeff Brubaker, SLOCOG page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-5 Final EIR Commenter 1 – Jeff Brubaker, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Comment Response 1-1: Comment noted and identification of related transportation projects included in the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan is much appreciated. Edits have been made to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, to incorporate these planned projects into the impact discussion. See pages 3.10-22 and 3.10-29. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 8.4.2 Individuals [Insert Comment Letter 1, Colleen Albert page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-7 Final EIR Commenter 2 – Colleen Albert Comment Response 2-1: Comment respectfully noted; however, the commenter addresses the Project rather than the adequacy of the EIR. The substance of this comment will be considered by City decision-makers as they consider potential Project approval. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 3, Anne Bachmann page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-9 Final EIR Commenter 3 – Anne Bachmann Comment Response 3-1: Thank you for your comment. Regarding the height of the hotel within Subarea 1, while the hotel could have a maximum height of up to 36 feet, the design, height, massing, and character of the hotel would be required to comply with Arroyo Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and Station Way (D-2.11), which state that buildings shall have a small to moderate scale with horizontal massing, and shall have an architectural character that transitions to the historic character within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that the Project would be consistent with the design guidelines and the character of the surrounding area. Comment Response 3-2: Please refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic and Appendix K regarding traffic associated with 58 residences and the hotel. The traffic analysis found that while traffic operations on East Cherry Avenue and the northbound Highway 101 ramp would slightly increase, impacts would not exceed City level of service (LOS) thresholds within the General Plan and would be less than significant. Please note that the proposed traffic signal at Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way was found mitigate significant impacts and is estimated to reduce delay from existing conditions, from 34.6 seconds to 16.4 seconds in AM peak hour and from 26.9 seconds to 24.9 seconds (see Tables 3.10-2 and 3.10-7). Comment Response 3-3: Your comments in support of the proposal for Subarea 3 and in opposition to Subareas 1 and 2 have been acknowledged. Please see Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources regarding the conversion of agricultural land to developed uses, and Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, regarding Project-generated traffic. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 4, Warren Clift page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-11 Final EIR Commenter 4 – Warren Clift Comment Response 4-1: Thank you for your comments and your opposition to the Project has been noted. Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, describes impacts to agricultural lands within the Project site and Impact UT-3 with Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services describes water usage resulting from the Project. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-12 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 5, Doug Ingham page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-13 Final EIR Commenter 5 – Doug Ingham Comment Response 5-1: Your preference for a smaller Project size is acknowledged. Comment Response 5-2: Your comments on traffic and transportation have been noted. For further detail on transportation issues and Project impacts, please refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. • Please note that U.S. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp onto Traffic Way is not proposed to be stop sign controlled. However, MM TRANS-5a recommends a circulation study that would further study traffic conditions to reduce potential impacts. • Please note a road is proposed leading to the property to the south of the Project site as this is proposed as part of the update for the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan, Circulation Element. However, this road is not proposed to be connected to Trinity Avenue under the Project. • Thank you for your suggestion. This road is already included as part of the Project. • Project trip generation and distribution onto Traffic Way is described within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, and Appendix K. • Please note that U.S. Highway 101 southbound on-ramp does not proposed to be stop sign controlled. However, MM TRANS-5a recommends a circulation study that would further study traffic conditions to reduce potential impacts. • Please note that East Cherry Avenue at Traffic Way is already stop sign controlled. Comment Response 5-3: Your opposition to the restaurant, unless confined to the hotel 1st floor, has been noted in this EIR. Thank you for your comment. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-14 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 6, Daniel Jones page 1 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-15 Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 6, Daniel Jones page 2 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-16 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Commenter 6 – Daniel Jones Comment Response 6-1: We appreciate your comments and feedback on the Draft EIR. We also acknowledge your opposition to the Project. Please see comment responses below regarding project density, water resources, and traffic safety. Comment Response 6-2: Thank you for your comment. Regarding the height of the hotel within Subarea 1, the hotel could have a maximum height of up to 36 feet, and has been evaluated in regards to current and applicable zoning height regulations. The design, height, massing, and character of the hotel would be required to comply with Arroyo Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and Station Way (D-2.11), which state that buildings shall have a small to moderate scale with horizontal massing, and shall have an architectural character that transitions to the historic character within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project will be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that that project would be consistent with the design guidelines and the character of the surrounding area. Comment Response 6-3: Comment noted. The Project’s water consumption is described in detail within Impact UT-3, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in this section, agricultural land uses within the Project site currently use an estimated 34.86 acre-feet per year (afy) of water, with a historic long-term water use of 41.34 afy. The Project was calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would result in a slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water use typical for agricultural operations by approximately 5.12 afy and would therefore not result in a net increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and appliances and drought tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water. Comment Response 6-4: Thank you for your comment and your preference for less residential lots has been noted. This EIR analyzes a Project alternative that would potentially reduce the number of lots within Subarea 2 (see Section 5.4.2.2, Reduced Development Alternative). Comment Response 6-5: Comment noted. Please see Comment Response 6-3. Comment Response 6-6: Thank you for your comment. Traffic safety is a priority for the City and the intersection of Traffic Way/East Cherry Avenue was analyzed for traffic safety issues; see Impact TRANS-5 within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. MM 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-17 Final EIR TRANS-5a recommends a circulation study to study circulation of vehicles from Project access points to Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue, which would further study traffic conditions and provide recommendations to reduce potential safety impacts. Comment Response 6-7: Thank you for your comments and your support of the Japanese Cultural Center has been noted in this EIR. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-18 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 7, Gary Joralemon page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-19 Final EIR Commenter 7 – Gary Joralemon Comment Response 7-1: Thank you for your comments. Your opinions of the Japanese cultural garden and hotel are duly noted in this EIR. Comment Response 7-2: In regard to the comment on water supply, a detailed analysis of Project water demand is included within Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services, and in particular, impacts to the City’s water supply are discussed in Impact UT-3. Water conservation measures are also included as part of the Project (see Section 2.6.4) which include low water fixtures and appliances, and drought tolerant landscaping. In regard to comments on circulation and ingress/egress onto East Cherry Avenue, Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, and Appendix K analyze circulation issues in depth. In particular, Impacts TRANS-5 addresses ingress/egress from the Project site onto adjacent roadways and found impacts to be less than significant. In addition, a recommended mitigation measure, MM TRANS-5a, recommends a circulation study to study circulation of vehicles from Project access points to Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue, which would further study traffic conditions and provide recommendations to reduce potential safety impacts. Lastly, in regard to comments on the hotel and keeping present with the “small town ambiance,” this EIR analyzes changes to visual character resulting from the Project within Section 3.1, Aesthetic Resources. The character of the hotel would be required to comply with Arroyo Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and Station Way (D-2.11), which requires buildings to have an architectural character that transitions to the historic character within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that that Project would be consistent with the design guidelines and the character of the surrounding area. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-20 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 8, Lori page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-21 Final EIR Commenter 8 – Lori (no last name provided) Comment Response 8-1: Thank you for your comments. Regarding your comment on Arroyo Grande traffic, please refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic and the Traffic Impact Analysis within Appendix K, which includes a detailed analysis of transportation and traffic impacts generated by the Project. Your opposition to the hotel and residences included in the Project has been duly noted in this EIR, as well as your opinion on the senior housing within Subarea 3. For further analysis on impacts to the “rural feel” or agricultural character of the Project site, please refer to Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-22 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 9, Marilyn Schmidt page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-23 Final EIR Commenter 9 – Marilyn Schmidt Comment Response 9-1: Thank you for your comments. Your opinions on the proposed Project have been duly noted in this EIR. It is noted that the commenter largely addresses the Project proposal rather than the adequacy of the EIR, and comments should be directed to City decision-makers. Please note that the current zoning for Subarea 1 (where the proposed hotel would be located) allows a maximum height of 36 feet, or three stories with a conditional use permit. Regarding water demand for the proposed Project, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services contains a detailed analysis of impacts to City water supply and found impacts to be less than significant. Also see Comment Response 6-3. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-24 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 10, Kent and Sue Zammit page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-25 Final EIR Commenter 10 – Kent and Sue Zammit Comment Response 10-1: Thank you for your comments on the EIR. In regard to traffic issues, Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, contains a detailed analysis on circulation and traffic at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way and Traffic Way/U.S. Highway 101 ramps. The Transportation Impact Analysis within Appendix K of this EIR found that while the Project would add trips to these intersections and would result in slightly longer intersection delays (e.g., less than 5 seconds during peak hour traffic), traffic would not exceed City LOS thresholds within the General Plan and would be less than significant. In addition, Impact TRANS-5 analyzes ingress/egress from the Project site onto East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. A recommended mitigation measure, MM TRANS- 5a, is also included while would require an additional circulation study to guide ingress/egress from Subarea 1, which would identify potential measures to further reduce traffic and circulation impacts. Comment Response 10-2: The hotel’s impact on visual character of the vicinity is discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and found impacts to be less than significant. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project would be subject to review by the ARC to ensure that that Project would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The hotel within Subarea 1 would serve as a transitional use from commercial and highway commercial uses along Traffic Way to residential uses along East Cherry Avenue. In accordance with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Design Overlay District D-2.11, the hotel design would include an architectural character that would transition to the historic district that would include elements of both the village mixed use and Traffic Way mixed use character, and color palettes that would be compatible with adjacent development. Please also see Comment Response 10-3 below regarding hotel design and character. Comment Response 10-3: Regarding the height of the hotel within Subarea 1, the current zoning for Subarea 1 (where the proposed hotel would be located) allows a maximum height of 36 feet, or three stories with a conditional use permit, and a similar scale building could develop within Subarea 1 without the approval of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). However, the height, design, massing, and character of the hotel would be required to comply with Arroyo Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and Station Way (D-2.11), which state that buildings shall have a small to moderate scale with horizontal massing, and shall have an architectural character that transitions to the historic character within Arroyo Grande. In addition, 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-26 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR proposed design guidelines specific to the Specific Plan area would be implemented, which would ensure a high quality character compatible with the surrounding village character. Comment Response 10-4: Your comment has been noted. However, as Subarea 1 is zoned TMU, the restaurant is already a conditionally allowable use that could be developed within the Subarea 1 site regardless of whether the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan is approved. Traffic issues associated with the proposed restaurant are included within the analysis of this EIR within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. Comment Response 10-5: The Project’s water consumption is described in detail within Impact UT-3, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in this section, agricultural land uses within the Project site currently use an estimated 34.86 acre-feet per year (afy) of water, with a historic long-term water use of 41.34 afy. The Project was calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would result in a slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water use typical for agricultural operations by approximately 5.12 afy and would therefore not result in a net increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and appliances and drought tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water. Comment Response 10-6: Please note that street parking along East Cherry Avenue would be provided to accommodate approximately 24 spaces and is planned as part of the roadway improvements. Please see Section 2.6.5, Circulation and Parking, and Figures 2- 5 and 2-6. For proposed residences within the Project site, parking would include two spaces per unit within an enclosed garage as well as street parking along proposed residential interior streets. Comment Response 10-7: Thank you for your comments and your opinions on the Japanese cultural gardens and proposals for Subareas 1 and 2 have been noted within this EIR. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-27 Final EIR 8.4.3 Applicant [Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 1 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-28 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 2 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-29 Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 3 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-30 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 4 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-31 Final EIR Commenter 11 – C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc. Comment Response 11-1: Thank you and we appreciate your comments on the EIR. Please see comment responses below. Comment Response 11-2: The spelling has been corrected on page 2-2. Comment Response 11-3: Text has been corrected on page 2-19 to reflect the current setting where Subarea 3 is undeveloped and is not cultivated with row crops. However, the change does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR. Comment Response 11-4: Figure 2-7 and text on page 2-29 has been edited to reflect the slight changes to the proposed interior roadway cross sections. However, the change does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR. Comment Response 11-5: Text has been added to Section 2.6.3.2 of the Project Description to clarify that lots 1 through 24 would be designed to be one story, while lots 25 through 58 could be up to two stories. In addition, a footnote has been added to Figures 3.1-3 and 3.1-4, and to page 3.1-20 to indicate that while simulations depict residences up to two stories in height along East Cherry Avenue (as originally proposed), Project design has been modified to reduce the height to one story for residences along East Cherry Avenue. However, the change does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR. Comment Response 11-6: Please note that the change on page 3.1-20 was made to replace “removal of several larger trees” to “removal of some larger trees”. However, the change does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR. Comment Response 11-7: Comment noted and clarifying text has been added to page 3.3- 29 to indicate that some of the listed measures under MM AQ-2b do not have quantifiable air quality emissions reductions. Please note that Impact AQ-2 accurately characterizes that mitigated Project emissions for ROG + NOx would be marginally over the APCD threshold; however, the EIR found that PM2.5 emissions would continue to be decisively over the threshold after mitigation. Further, while is accurate to state that many measures included within MM AQ-2b do not have quantifiable reductions in air quality emissions, particularly when estimating with CalEEMod, it may be inappropriate to state that the Project’s true emissions may be below the thresholds. The methodology used to determine Project air quality emissions is consistent with the guidance within APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and found emissions to be over the APCD thresholds. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-32 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Comment Response 11-8: As the commenter identifies and EIR states, the Project does embody land use planning strategies such as mixed use development, improving the jobs/housing balance, and compact communities which are mentioned within the 2001 Clean Air Plan; however, consistency with the Clean Air Plan was determined using the methodology outlined in the guidelines in the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Based on a strict interpretation of the APCD’s criteria, the Project was found to be inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. However, it is noted that the 2001 Clean Air Plan does not include population or growth projections beyond the year 2015, and does not account for the City’s more recent growth patterns nor would it accommodate any growth beyond 2015. Given these limitations, it is acknowledged that Criteria 1, which states, “Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those used in the most recent Clean Air Plan for the same area?” is very restrictive. Regarding MM AQ-5a, as stated in the mitigation text, the City shall determine the appropriate actions required, and/or fair share of payment for funding the additional transit stop. The timing of this measure would occur prior to the issuance of land use permits or CUPs. Regarding fair share payment, the exact metrics of determining payment or a particular dollar amount need not be included in the EIR mitigation measure. As stated in the EIR, the City would determine a fair share payment amount that would be commensurate to the size and intensity of the Project’s impact. Comment Response 11-9: Figure 3.6-1 has been edited accordingly. However, the change does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR. Comment Response 11-10: Edits to MM TRANS-3b have been made as requested. It is noted that these edits further clarify and define the mitigation and do not change the intent of the mitigation or its ability to mitigate the impact, nor do they modify the conclusions of the analysis included in the Draft EIR. See page 3.10-26. Comment Response 11-11: Thank you for your comments, and calculations performed by Public Works Supervisor, Shane Taylor, are included as Appendix N. Edits were made to Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services, to reflect the fact that Subarea 1 has been historically irrigated although this parcel is currently fallow, and that the long-term water need for the site is 41.34 afy (see pages 3.11-4, 3.11-15 and 3.11-16). These edits were made in recognition that long-term historic water use within the Project site is an indicator of average agricultural water demand and accounts for cyclic variations in irrigation patterns due to weather, rotation of crops and the temporary fallowing or resting of soils. Please note that while the commenter asserts that the Project will increase water supply by 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-33 Final EIR 7 acre-feet per year (afy), these calculations do not account for the estimated 2.7 afy of projected water demand for Subarea 3. As such, the EIR has been amended to reflect that the project would result in an approximate 5.12 afy increase in water supply. Further, as Subarea 1 is currently fallow, the analysis also conservatively reflects current water use for the site and estimates that water demand would also increase approximately 1.36 afy from current conditions. However, this updated information does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR. Comment Response 11-12: Text has been corrected and edited accordingly on page 5-5. Comment Response 11-13: Thank you for your comments. It is noted that the Reduced Development Alternative would meet some but not all of the Project objectives, including the provision of housing and economic feasibility. The commenter also notes that the Reduced Development Alternative may not be in line with the City’s development goals for housing, housing affordability, and anticipated retail/commercial uses. However, as the commenter correctly recognizes, economic feasibility is not typically assessed under CEQA and selection of the environmentally superior alternative is based solely on the alternative’s ability to reduce environmental impacts identified in the EIR. This EIR finds the Reduced Development Alternative to be the environmentally superior alternative as this alternative would slightly reduce impacts to many resources areas analyzed within the EIR, and may reduce significant air quality impacts to a less than significant level after mitigation. This alternative was designed to reduce traffic impacts on Traffic Way/Fair Oaks Avenue to a less than significant level so that signalization of this intersection would no longer be required; however, as the commenter points out, without signalization, improved LOS at this intersection would not be fully realized. However, neither the Project nor Reduced Development Alternative would reduce traffic impacts to a level that would be less than significant; therefore, each would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. City decision-makers will decide if the proposed Project better meets the needs and goals of the City, particularly when non-environmental factors are considered. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-34 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR 8.4.4 Oral Testimonies Oral testimony was received for the Project on May 17, 2016 at a public workshop held before the City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, where members of the Planning Commission provided comment, followed by comments from the public. Summarized below are the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to comments, followed by the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Planning Commission Comments Commenter 12 – Commissioner John Mack Comment 12-1: Pismo Clarkia – This is a seasonal species, are additional biological surveys needed to look at seasonal species on the hillside area? Comment 12-2: Water Demand - 36.22 AFY for the site, is this broken down by Subarea? Comment 12-3: Night Lighting – how was night lighting analyzed? Comment 12-4: Traffic...is there an interim solution? Comment Response 12-1: The Biological Resources Assessment identifies suitable habitat for sensitive species and assesses the potential for such species to occur within the Project vicinity, even if none were found during field surveys. The Biological Resources Assessment ultimately concluded that the Project site does not support suitable habitat for any special status plant species, including Pismo clarkia. While no known occurrences of Pismo clarkia have been within the Project site, the Biological Resources Assessment found that this species has been found within 5 miles of the Project site (see Figure 5 of Appendix F). In addition, Sage Institute, Inc. conducted a walking field survey on June 2, 2016 where special attention was given to the identification of Pismo clarkia within the Project vicinity. No Pismo clarkia was identified within the Project site and the survey concluded that soils onsite do not support Pismo clarkia. Findings of the field survey are included within Appendix F, Biological Resources Assessment Addendum, Pismo Clarkia Rare Plant Survey Report for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project, City of Arroyo Grande, CA. Comment Response 12-2: Yes, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services includes a breakdown of water demand by subarea. See Table 3.11-5, Projected Water Demand. Comment Response 12-3: The Project design is conceptual and at the time of EIR analysis, no lighting plan is available. However, it is reasonably assumed that the Project 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-35 Final EIR could introduce new light sources on a site where none currently exist. Nighttime lighting is analyzed within Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Impact VIS-4 (pages 3.1- 24 through 26). Comment Response 12-4: Near term traffic conditions are analyzed in the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) within Appendix K, which represents a scenario where approved and pending transportation projects are assumed to be constructed. This scenario is representative of conditions within the foreseeable future. Tables 3.10-4 and 3.10-5 within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, demonstrate the Project’s impacts within this near-term scenario. Commenter 13 – Commissioner Terry Fowler-Payne Comment 13-1: Traffic and circulation in the village – Traffic is currently not good and the village did not anticipate this level of growth in the area. Traffic analysis focuses on circulation on Traffic Way, was Garden Street analyzed? Garden Street could be a potential shortcut. Comment Response 13-1: Omni-Means prepared a supplemental memorandum within Appendix K that addresses traffic and operational issues that may result from Project trips on local roadways, particularly those that may be used for shortcuts to avoid the village core. Garden Street, as well as other local roadways are expected to distribute a small percentage of Project-generated trips. The traffic supplemental memorandum conservatively assumes 7 percent of trips could use local roadways such as Garden Street; however, this would only equate to approximately 3 AM and 4 PM peak hour trips, which would not result in a significant increase of new traffic on this roadway. Commenter 14 – Commissioner Glenn Martin Comment 14-1: Parking - Is there enough or too much? Ensure that an appropriate amount is provided for the given uses. Estimates in the EIR may not reflect real parking needs. Does EIR cover the outside envelope? Subarea 1 is the big concern. Comment Response 14-1: Parking for the Project is described within Section 2.6.5, Circulation and Parking. As the EIR analyzes a conceptual design for Subarea 1, parking for this subarea is assumed to comply with the provisions of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code for the purposes of analysis within this EIR. This includes at least 122 parking spaces in Subarea as well as proposed street parking. City planning review of future 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-36 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR entitlement requests for Subarea 1 would address parking requirements to ensure with city zoning and parking regulations. Commenter 15 – Commissioner John Keen Comment 15-1: Good job on the EIR. One of the best ever seen. Comment Response 15-1: Thank you for your comments on the EIR. Public Oral Comments Commenter 16 – Linda Osty Comment 16-1: Prefers Reduced Development Alternative. Comment 16-2: Opposes two story homes, this is not in the character of the village. The lot sizes are too big, smaller houses would be more in keeping with the village theme. Comment 16-3: Traffic on East Cherry Avenue will be a concern. Comment 16-4: Questioned if enough parking is proposed for the hotel. Comment 16-5: Questioned if adequate ingress/egress exists on East Cherry Avenue to the property. Comment 16-6: Against the traffic signal proposed for Fair Oaks/ Traffic Way; this may cause circulation issues. Comment Response 16-1: Thank you and we appreciate your comments. Your support of the Reduced Development Alternative has been noted. Comment Response 16-2: In regards to your comment opposing proposed residences up to two stories, please note that the Applicant has modified the proposal so that 40 percent of the units would be designed and constructed to only be one story. This includes lots 1 through 24 shown in yellow on Figure 2-3, which are along East Cherry Avenue and the alley-loaded lots to reduce the size and massing of these residences. Second stories on the remaining lots would be either partially visible, or would not be visible from East Cherry Road and Traffic Way. Further, the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Guidelines to ensure that residence have appropriate setbacks, second story stepbacks and architectural design that reduces the overall size and massing. Comment Response 16-3: Roadway traffic on East Cherry Avenue was assessed within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic and within the TIA in Appendix K, and found 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-37 Final EIR that while the Project would result in increases in traffic along East Cherry Avenue and slightly longer delays at the East Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way intersection, impacts would be below the City’s thresholds in the General Plan and would be less than significant. Comment Response 16-4: Regarding parking adequacy within Subarea 1, as stated within Section 2.0, Project Description, the amount of parking spaces provided for the hotel and restaurant use would be required to comply with Chapter 16.56 of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. City planning staff would ensure that that parking is compliant prior to the approval of a CUP for the hotel and restaurant. Comment Response 16-5: Regarding ingress/egress issues on East Cherry Avenue, please refer to Impact TRANS-5 within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic. Comment Response 16-6: Regarding comments addressing the traffic signal proposed for Fair Oaks/ Traffic Way, additional traffic analysis was performed for the intersection of Fair Oaks/ Traffic Way and for the intersection of Allen Street/ Traffic Way. This analysis is contained within Appendix K. The TIA found that existing LOS and queueing at these intersections are currently deficient. However, after implementation of Project mitigation, including installation of the traffic signal at Fair Oaks/Traffic Way, intersection operations would be improved to LOS C or better. See Appendix K. Commenter 17 – C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc. Comment 17-1: The commenter noted that she is available to answer questions during the public hearing. No comment response need. Commenter 18 – Minetta Bennett Comment 18-1: Density of the development is too much and will cause congestion on Allen Street and Traffic Way. Comment 18-2: Traffic and parking are concerns – particularly parking on both sides of East Cherry Avenue. Comment 18-3: Increased traffic in the area will create more hazards for pedestrians crossing the street. Comment Response 18-1: Regarding comments associated with potential congestion at the intersection of Allen Street and Traffic Way, additional traffic analysis was performed for the intersection of Allen Street/ Traffic Way. This analysis is contained within Appendix K. The traffic analysis found that existing LOS and queueing at Allen Street and 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-38 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Traffic Way are currently deficient. However, after implementation of Project mitigation, including installation of the traffic signal at Fair Oaks/Traffic Way, intersection operations would be improved to LOS C or better. See Appendix K. This would improve current queueing and congestion within the Allen Street/ Traffic Way intersection. Comment Response 18-2: In regards to comments on parking along East Cherry Avenue, please note that street parking along East Cherry Avenue would be provided to accommodate approximately 24 spaces and is planned as part of the roadway improvements. Please see Section 2.6.5, Circulation and Parking, and Figures 2-5 and 2- 6. Comment Response 18-3: For analysis on traffic hazards and pedestrian safety issues, please see Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic as well as in the TIA within Appendix K. Commenter 19 – Shirley Gibson Comment 19-1: The density is too much. Comment 19-2: Why is there no study of Allen Street and Traffic Way? Circulation is already poor and dangerous intersection. Pacific Coast Railway and Allen Street needs to be looked at. Comment Response 19-1: Thank you for your comments and your opinion on the proposed density of the Project has been noted. While density in of itself is generally not considered a CEQA issue, this EIR indirectly analyzes the proposed density of the Project as it relates to traffic trip generation and congestion (see Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic), change in visual character (see Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources), and demand on public services and utilities (see Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services). Comment Response 19-2: Regarding comments pertaining to traffic along local neighborhood streets including Allen Street, Pacific Coast Railway Place, and Mason Street, additional traffic analysis was performed for these roadways and is contained within the traffic supplemental memorandum in Appendix K. This analysis includes Project trip distribution, and found that a small portion of Project trips may use these roadways to reach East Branch Street; this includes an estimated 3 AM peak hour trips and 4 PM peak hour trips and is not considered a significant impact to the neighborhood streets. See Appendix K. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-39 Final EIR [Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-40 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-41 Final EIR [Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-42 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 4] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-43 Final EIR 8.4.5 Public Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period [Insert Comment Letter 20, Austin page 1 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-44 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 20, Austin page 2 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-45 Final EIR Commenter 20 – Don and Joanne Austin Comment Response 20-1: Thank you for your comments. The Project’s water consumption and effect on City water supply is described in detail within Impact UT-3, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in this section, agricultural land uses within the Project site have a historic long-term water use of 41.34 afy. In general, agricultural land uses usually have higher water demands that residential uses. The Project was calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would result in a net decrease of 5.12 afy from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water use typical for agricultural operations and would therefore not result in a net increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and appliances and drought tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water. In addition, we acknowledge your support of the Subarea 3 proposal. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-46 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 21, Hedderig page 1 of 1] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-47 Final EIR Commenter 21 – Bruce Hedderig Comment Response 21-1: Comment noted. The Project’s water consumption is described in detail within Impact UT-3, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in this section, agricultural land uses within the Project site currently use an estimated 34.86 acre-feet per year (afy) of water, with a historic long-term water use of 41.34 afy. The Project was calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would result in a slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water use typical for agricultural operations by approximately 5.12 afy and would therefore not result in a net increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and appliances and drought tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-48 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 22, Keating page 1 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-49 Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 22, Keating page 2 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-50 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR Commenter 22 – Linda Keating Comment Response 22-1: Comment respectfully noted; however, the commenter addresses the Project design rather than the adequacy of the EIR, and comment will be considered by City decision-makers in that context. Comment Response 22-2: Please note that while the residential alley would not provide public parking, street parking along East Cherry Avenue would be provided to accommodate approximately 24 spaces and is planned as part of the roadway improvements. Please see Section 2.6.5, Circulation and Parking, and Figures 2-5 and 2- 6. For proposed residences within the Project site, parking would include two spaces per unit within an enclosed garage as well as street parking along proposed residential interior streets. Comment Response 22-3: Regarding emergency home evacuation concerns and adequate access and egress via residential alley, the Project is subject to review and approval by the City and the Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA) to ensure adequacy of Project site designs related to emergency ingress and egress. Comment Response 22-4: Comment noted. No additional data was provided by the commenter to support the conclusion of increased crime rates with regards to the proposed alley. The Project will be reviewed to ensure adequate lighting to prevent visual resource impacts while ensuring security of the Project area. Comment Response 22-5: For responses to comments addressing guest parking, please refer to Comment Response 18-2. Emergency vehicles could access East Cherry Avenue or the proposed residential interior streets within the Project site to access units within the Project site. In addition, the Project, including roadways would be subject to review by the FCFA. Comment Response 22-6: For guest parking, including those performing household services, please see Comment Response 18-2. Comment Response 22-7: Comment noted. However, the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR. Comment Response 22-8: Thank you for your suggestions. However, the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, and comment should be directed to City decision- makers. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-51 Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 23, Nichols page 1 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-52 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 23, Nichols page 2 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-53 Final EIR Commenter 23 – Ann Nichols Comment Response 23-1: Thank you and we appreciate your comments. Please see comment responses below. Comment Response 23-2: Thank you for your comment. For a discussion of analysis relating to the height of the hotel in relation to the hills in the background, please see Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. The EIR found impacts to visual resources such as distance views of the Santa Lucia Mountains to be less than significant after mitigation. Comment Response 23-3: Thank you for your comments. Please refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic and the TIA in Appendix K regarding traffic associated with proposed residences within Subarea 2. Please refer to Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services for a discussion on Project water usage. Comment Response 23-4: Your comments in support of the proposal for Subarea 3 have been acknowledged within this EIR. 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-54 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 24, Osty page 1 of 3] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-55 Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 24, Osty page 2 of 2] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 8-56 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Final EIR [Insert Comment Letter 24, Osty page 2 of 3] 8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 8-57 Final EIR Commenter 24 – Linda Osty, Kent and Sue Zammit Comment Response 24-1: Thank you for your comment. Please note that the roadway leading to the hillside to the south of the Project site is only a stubout for a future connection and the Project does not include the extension of this roadway to any connecting road network to the south (see Figure 2-5). Future growth facilitated by this stubout is described within Section 4.2.4, Extension of Infrastructure. Comment Response 24-2: Regarding the height of the hotel within Subarea 1, while the hotel could have a maximum height of up to 36 feet, the design, height, massing, and character of the hotel would be required to comply with Arroyo Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and Station Way (D- 2.11), which state that buildings shall have a small to moderate scale with horizontal massing, and shall have an architectural character that transitions to the historic character within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project will be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that that project would be consistent with the design guidelines and the character of the surrounding area. Regarding parking adequacy within Subarea 1, as stated within Section 2.0, Project Description, the amount of parking spaces provided for the hotel and restaurant use would be required to comply with Chapter 16.56 of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. City planning staff would ensure that that parking is compliant prior to the approval of a CUP for the hotel and restaurant. Comment Response 24-3: Please see Comment Response 10-1. Comment Response 24-4: Please see Comment Response 10-2. Comment Response 24-5: Please see Comment Response 10-3. Comment Response 24-6: Please see Comment Response 10-4. Comment Response 24-7: Please see Comment Response 10-5. Comment Response 24-8: Please see Comment Response 10-6. n ! I I ' , I ' f L' i I ', I ,_- ERRATA MEMORANDUM CORRECTIONS AND AD,DITIONS ERRATA MEMORANDUM This memorandum lists all corrections and additions incorporated into the East Cherry Specific Plan Draft EIR in response to public and agency comments and staff and applicant corrections. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-2 Section 2.2, Project Applicants and Representatives has been corrected as follows: Subarea Applicant Representative Architect I C.M. Florence, AICP RRM Design Group SRK.Hotels Randy Russon 1 611 El Camino Real, Oasis Associates, Inc. 3765 South Higuera St, 3427 San Miguelito Court Suite 102 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA I 93401 RRM Design Group Mangano Homes, Inc. C.M. Florence, AICP, Randy Russon 2 735 Tank Farm Road Oasis Associates, Inc. 3765 South Higuera Street, " 3427 San Miguelito Court Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Arroyo Grande Valley Assembly Design Japanese Welfare Association Margaret lkeal Ikeda Even Jones 3 (JWA) 1701 MLK, Jr. Way 1701 MLK, Jr. Way 715 Grand Avenue, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94709 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Berkeley, CA 94709 Page 2-17 Text within Section 2.6.3.2, Subarea 2: Proposed Village _Residential is added as follows: Subarea 2 contains residential lots that range from 4,400 to 9.400 square feet. Residences on lots 1-24 (shown in yellow on Figure 2-3) would be limited to one story, while lots 25 through 58 (shown in orange on Figure 2-3) could be up to two stories or 30 feet in height. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan FinalEIR 1 ERRATA MEMORANDUM Page 2-19 Text within Summary' Box Subarea 3 is revised as follows~ . , Suharea3 Size: 1.51 acres (without +0.50 acre remainder) Location: South of East Cherry Avenue Existing Use: Undeveloped agrimdtural row erofls iHeludiag eelery, lettuee aad broeeoli. Adjacent Uses: Oak woodlands (to the ' south), residential neighborhood (to the east), single family residences along East Cherry Avenue (to the north) Proposed: Village mixed use with community center building, I 0-unit senior housing building, retail space, historic orchard and Japanese cultural gardens. Page2-28 Minor edits are made to Figure 2-7. Page2-29 The fourth and fifth bulleted paragraphs are revised as follows: • Southern Street-Two 12-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking area, twe with 5- foot wide landscaping parkv;ays, and twe 5-foot wide detached sidewalks on both sides of the roadway; and • Northern Street-Two 12-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking area, a ~~-foot wide landscaped area parkway, and a 5-foot wide1 detached sidewalk on one side, with a 15-foot wide parkway linear laneseaping area with meandering 5- foot wide sidewalk on the other side. 2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan FinalEIR '_j 1 __ 1 I I I- I ~ ; -J '_, ERRATA MEMORANDUM 3.1 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES Page 3.1-13 A footnote was added to Figure 3.1-3 that states: *While simulation depicts residences up to two stories, the Project will contain only one-story residences along East Cherry A venue. Page 3.1-15 A footnote was added to Figure 3.1-4 that states: *While simulation depicts residences up to two stories, the Project will contain only one-story residences along East Cherry Avenue. Page 3.1-20 Footnote 2 is inserted into the first paragraph on the page and states: Project simulations for KVA 2 and 3 (present in Figures 3.1-3 and 3.1-4) illustrate how development of homes within Subarea 2 site would fully block views of the natural hillsides located to the south for sensitive receptors along East Cherry Avenue, and existing partial views of the Santa Lucia Range would likely be further interrupted by the proposed Project from East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way.'l.. 2 While visual simulations depict two-story residences along East Cherry A venue, residences along East Cherry A venue are proposed to only be one story in height. See,Section 2.6.3.2. Page 3.1-20 Text within the third paragraph is revised as follows: Development of the· site would result in the removal of several some larger trees from the property and the addition of several structures whose designs have not been specified. 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Pages 3.3-29 Text to the Residual Impact section is added as follows: Mitigation Measure AQ-2b summarizes the list of appropriate mitigation measures, and indicates which of these are to be incorporate~ by the Applicants in accordance with the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, it is noted that many measures listed in MM AQ-2b do not contain quantifiable air quality emissions East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan FinalEIR 3 ERRATA MEMORANDUM reductions. After incorporation of the above mitigation measures, CalEEMod estimates indicate that Project operation would be marginally over the APCD thresholds for ROG + NOx by approximately 0.54 lbs/day, and would be over the PM2.5 threshold by 1.05 lbs/day. However, with incorporation of the above mitigation, long-term operational impacts would be just above the operational emissions for ROG and NOx, and PM2 s, and would therefore be significant and unavoidable (see Table 3.3-9). 3.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 3.6-3 Figure 3.6-1 has been edited to relabel "Man-made Drainage Culvert" to "Existing Man- made Drainage Ditch." 3.10 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Pages 3.10-22 and 23 Text within Impact TRANS-2 is added as follows: The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan identifies the need for intersection improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way; these improvements are planned and discretionary funding to the City for preliminary phases may be available (SLOCOG 2014a). Page 3.10-26 Mitigated Measure MM TRANS-3b is revised as follows: MM TRA.NS-3b East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street: The Applicants shall pay a fair share portion of the design and construction costs for eonst:Fuctien ~+ twe reunclaheuts 8f the intersectien e.f Eflst Grflnd Avenue/U.S. Highway 101nerthheund rfln'lpS (Jl'ld the intersec#en 8J~'Eest Brflneh Street flnd TrtJjjic WBo]·, er t1ff flhemfl#ve transportation improvements that would provide an acceptable LOS consistent with adopted City policy, in order to mitigate the Project's long-term impact on the cumulative condition, using the Equitable Share Responsibility Formula from the 2002 Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Applicants shall fund a fair share ofthe estimated costs {Or construction oftwo roundabouts at the intersection ofEast Grand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps and the intersection of East Branch Street and Traffic Way. 2 Requirements and Timing. The Applicants shall submit payment of their fair share of funding for the above mitigation prior to issuance of land use andlor CUPs grading and/or building permits. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan FinalEIR I ' Page 3.10-28 ERRATA MEMORANDUM Monitoring. The City shall determine the amount of payment of fair shares for each Applicant commensurate with metrics that demonstrate the relative level and intensity of proposed development (e.g., square footage, land use type, trip generation, etc.). Mitigated Measure MM TRANS-5a is revised as follows: MM TRANS-5a As part of review of permits for development of Subarea 1 and the proposed hotel/restaurant, a circulation study shall be prepared to guide driveway location, design, and ingress/egress access in such a way to ensure public safety and utility. Requirements and Timing. Prior to approval of the CUP, the Applicant shall submit a circulation study prepared by a Traffic Engineer. Monitoring. The City require will require the submittal of circulation study, with review and concurrence to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to CUP review and approval. 3.11 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES Page 3.11-4 Text is added to the first paragraph on the page as follows: Historic and current annual water use for the 11.62 acres of active. agricultural land is approximately 34.86 afy. Subarea 1 and Subarea 3 of the Project site consist of undeveloped and fallow land which currently do not utilize water from City supply, and recent water demand for these sites is estimated to be very low (i.e., less than 1.0 af per acre )(Oasis Associates, Inc. 20 15); however, Subarea 1 has historically been irrigated and used for row crops, and is estimated to have had a long-term water demand of 6.48 afy. Subarea 3 is not irrigated and has a water demand of 0 afy. Page 3.11-15 Text is added to Impact UT -3, third paragraph on the page, as follows: Historically, given the relatively higher water demand associated with irrigated agricultural crop production, water demand for the 11.62 acres of active onsite agricultural land equates to approximately 34.86 afY based on a water use factor of East Cherry Avenue SpecifiC Plan FinalEIR 3 ERRATA MEMORANDUM 3 afy per acre. In addition, although Subarea 1 is currently fallow, this parcel was historically irrigated with an estimated 6.48 afy. Overall, the long-term historic water demand for the Project site was 41.34 afy. Page 3.11-16 Text is revised in Impact UT-3, second paragraph on the page, as follows: The projected future City water supply incorporates the anticipated City build-out population. Overall, the Project would result in a slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water use typical for agriculturaL operations by approximately 5.12 afy. In a worst case scenario, in consideration of the current fallow status of S1:1barea 1, net water demand may increase approximately 1.36 afy from current conditions; however, the Projeet would not suBstantially inerease City v;ater demand, nor v;ould it suBstantially deeFease City watef supply. - 5.0 ALTERNATIVES Page 5-5 Text is revised in Section 5.4.2.1, No Project Alternative, t~ird paragraph on the page, as follows: Under this alternative, ongoing agricultural production would continue in Subarea 2 ~. with associated water use, application of pesticides and herbicides and other ongoing impacts (e.g., dust generation). Subarea 3 would retain its agricultural zoning and would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. APPENDIXF The Biological Resources Assessment Addendum, Pismo Clarkia Rare Plant Survey. Report for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project (June 30, 2016) by Sage Institute has been added to the end of Appendix F, containing the Biological Resources Assessment. APPENDIXK The traffic supplemental memorandum by Omni Means has been added to the end of Appendix K, containing the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA). APPENDIXN Appendix N has been added to the Final EIR, containing water duty factor calculations performed by Public Works Supervisor, Shane Taylor. 4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan FinalEIR I I __ )